Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00277/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00277-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tammy Lynn Sheridan, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-277-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff’s Motion for an award of fees under 28 U.S.C.

§2412(d)(1)(A) (doc. 32), the defendant’s Response (doc. 34), and plaintiff’s Reply (doc.

38). 

A prevailing party will be awarded fees under 28 U.S.C. §2412(d)(1)(A) “unless the

court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special

circumstances make an award unjust.” 

Here, we affirmed the decision of the Commissioner denying disability benefits in a

comprehensive ten page order. Order of Mar. 22, 2013 (doc. 21). We concluded that

substantial evidence in the record supported the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff was not

disabled. Id. at 10. 

Two members of an appellate panel disagreed and remanded to allow the ALJ to

provide a sufficient explanation for the denial of benefits. Mem. Dispo. of Nov. 17, 2015 at

Case 2:12-cv-00277-FJM Document 39 Filed 04/12/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

5 (doc. 28). Circuit Judge Bea disagreed with the panel majority and filed a dissent,

concluding that the ALJ offered clear and convincing evidence for discounting the credibility

of plaintiff’s self-reports, and that a potential alternative interpretation did not justify

upsetting the ALJ’s findings. Mem. Dispo. of Nov. 17, 2015 at 5 (Bea, J., dissenting) (doc.

28). 

There is obviously a good faith disagreement here on the merits. Two Article III

judges believe there was error. Two Article III judges believe there was no error. We need

not belabor the details of their disagreement. We do not decide here who is “right” and who

is “wrong.” The majority of the panel has spoken on the merits. But we do have to decide

whether the government’s position was substantially justified. I believe any fair reading of

this court’s Order of Mar. 22, 2013 (doc. 21) and Circuit Judge Bea’s dissent precludes a

finding that the government’s position was not substantially justified. The government has

met its burden of showing that its position was indeed substantially justified. To hold

otherwise on this record would turn 28 U.S.C. §2412(d)(1)(A) into an automatic fee shifting

statute, which it plainly is not. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s fees.

(Doc. 32).

DATED this 12th day of April, 2016.

Case 2:12-cv-00277-FJM Document 39 Filed 04/12/16 Page 2 of 2