Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02573/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02573-1/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

Kim Brown-Hunter, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carolyn W. Colvin, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-2573-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff’s Motion for attorneys fees (Doc. 29), defendant’s

Response (Doc. 38), and plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. 41). Plaintiff is entitled to fees under the

EAJA unless the government’s position was substantially justified. In affirming the

Commissioner’s denial of benefits, we concluded that the ALJ gave clear and convincing

reasons to support his findings that plaintiff’s impairments were less serious than she

claimed. Doc. 22 at 3. Each inconsistency that we relied upon was identified by the ALJ.

Id. We did not make independent findings. Nevertheless, the court of appeals thought we

did. Slip Op. at 15. But in remanding for further administrative proceedings, even the court

of appeals acknowledged that there remain “crucial questions” because of the

“inconsistencies between [her] testimony and the medical evidence in the record.” Slip Op.

at 19. Taken as a whole, the opinion of the court of appeals suggests the ALJ’s written

decision suffered from technical rather than substantive defects. 

Case 2:11-cv-02573-FJM Document 42 Filed 01/20/16 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 -

Having carefully reviewed our order (Doc. 22) and the opinion of the court of appeals,

we conclude that the government’s position was substantially justified. Indeed, in light of

this record, it would have been irresponsible for the government not to have defended this

case. We would be greatly surprised if the outcome were to change on remand. The ALJ

need only draw an even more detailed roadmap. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED DENYING plaintiff’s Motion for attorneys fees. (Doc.

29). 

DATED this 20th day of January, 2016.

Case 2:11-cv-02573-FJM Document 42 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 2