Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02355/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02355-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald D. Brown,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of

Social Security

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-2355-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees (doc. 23), defendant’s

response (doc. 28), and plaintiff’s reply (doc. 33). On November 25, 2005, we issued an

Order (doc. 20), in which we denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment and

remanded the case to the ALJ for further findings. Plaintiff then filed an application for

attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $4,301.25 and $150.00, respectively, pursuant to

the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 

The EAJA provides for an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party unless the

government’s position as a whole was substantially justified. Id. at § 2412(d)(1)(A); United

States v. Marolf, 277 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2002). A "substantially justified" position

is one that has "a reasonable basis in both law and fact." The fact that the government did

not prevail in court "does not raise a presumption that its position was not substantially

justified." Id. at 1162. In reviewing this application for fees, we will look to whether the

Case 2:04-cv-02355-FJM Document 34 Filed 06/09/06 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 -

Commissioner was substantially justified with respect to the procedural issue on which

plaintiff prevailed in our November 25th Order. See Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 566 (9th

Cir. 1995). 

Plaintiff raised four issues challenging the Commissioner’s denial of his application

for disability benefits. We affirmed the ALJ’s conclusions on three issues, and remanded the

case to the ALJ for further clarification of the fourth issue, relating to the plaintiff’s ability

to perform his past relevant work as a cashier. Specifically, we asked the ALJ to further

consider a conflict between the plaintiff’s “sedentary” residual functional capacity and the

conclusion that he could perform his past relevant work as a cashier, which the Dictionary

of Occupational Titles (DOT) classifies as "light" work. In reaching our decision to remand,

we were aware that the regulations provide that the DOT classifications are rebuttable,

Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1435 (9th Cir. 1995), and that vocational expert testimony

and published sources other than the DOT are authoritative. See 20 C.F.R. §§

404.1566(d)(2)-(5),(e); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(b)(2). However, because the ALJ had not

expressly resolved this conflict, we remanded for further review. We expressly stated in our

order, however, that "[w]e express no opinion as to the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff is

capable of performing his past relevant work." Order at 7. Accordingly, we conclude the

Commissioner's position was substantially justified.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's application for

attorney's fees (doc. 23). 

DATED this 8th day of June, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02355-FJM Document 34 Filed 06/09/06 Page 2 of 2