Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02291/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02291-1/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 (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 

Michael P Lasso, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael J Astrue, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-02291-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to 

Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Doc. 25. Defendant has filed a response. 

Doc. 26. Plaintiff has replied. Doc. 25. For the reasons stated below, the Court will 

grant the motion. 

I. Background. 

 An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) denied Plaintiff’s application for social 

security benefits on July 22, 2011. Doc. 1 at 1. That decision became final when the 

Appeals Council denied review on August 27, 2012. Id. at 2. Plaintiff brought an action 

for judicial review in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Id. The Court ruled in 

favor of Plaintiff and remanded the case for further proceedings. Doc. 21. Plaintiff has 

now filed an application for attorney fees under the EAJA, requesting $6,931.63 in 

attorney’s fees for 37.20 hours of work performed. Doc. 25 at 1. 

II. Legal Standard. 

 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) provides that “a court shall award to a prevailing party 

Case 2:12-cv-02291-DGC Document 28 Filed 01/08/14 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

other than the United States fees and other expenses . . . unless the court finds that the 

position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances 

made an award unjust.” “An applicant for disability benefits becomes a prevailing party 

for purposes of the EAJA if the denial of her benefits is reversed and remanded 

regardless of whether disability benefits ultimately are awarded.” Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 

274 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 2001). In the Ninth Circuit, “attorneys’ fees are to be 

awarded to a party winning a sentence-four remand unless the commissioner shows that 

his position with respect to the issue on which the district court based its remand was 

substantially justified.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal 

citations and quotations omitted). The Supreme Court has stated that “a position can be 

justified even though it is not correct, and we believe it can be substantially . . . justified 

if a reasonable person could think it correct, that is, if it has a reasonable basis in law and 

fact.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 566 n.2 (1988). 

III. Analysis. 

 The ALJ rejected Plaintiff’s claim because she found that Plaintiff could perform 

some work, that he could work independently, and that he could adjust to other work than 

that which he had previously been performing. Doc. 21 at 3. In making these findings, 

the ALJ discredited the medical opinion of Dr. Eric Feldman, one of Plaintiff’s treating 

physicians. On review, the Court found that the ALJ failed to articulate “a detailed and 

thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence” that supported her 

decision to discredit Dr. Feldman’s opinion. Id. at 7. The Court remanded the case for 

further proceedings consistent with its order. Id. at 17. 

 Defendant argues that Plaintiff should not be awarded attorney’s fees because her 

position was substantially justified. Doc. 26 at 4-6. The Court disagrees. Defending 

“basic and fundamental [procedural] errors” is not substantially justified. Shafer v. 

Astrue, 518 F.3d 1067, 1071-72 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the ALJ committed 

fundamental error by discrediting Claimant’s testimony without giving clear and 

convincing reasons and that the Commissioner was not substantially justified in 

Case 2:12-cv-02291-DGC Document 28 Filed 01/08/14 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

defending it); see also Jager v. Astrue, 290 F.App’x 27, 28 (9th Cir. 2008). “Where, as 

here, the ALJ's decision was reversed on the basis of procedural errors, the question is not

whether [Defendant’s] position as to the merits of [Plaintiff’s] disability claim was 

substantially justified. Rather, the relevant question is whether [Defendant’s] decision to 

defend on appeal the procedural errors committed by the ALJ was substantially justified.” 

Shafer, 518 F.3d at 1071-72 (emphasis original). A court should not need to speculate as 

to the reasons the ALJ rejected the claimant’s allegations. Corbin v. Apfel, 149 F.3d 

1051, 1052 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that the Commissioner was not substantially justified 

in defending an ALJ's decision where he rejected Claimant's testimony without specific 

findings). 

 The ALJ in this case did not give legally sufficient reasons for rejecting Dr. 

Feldman’s opinion, and offered only the conclusory statement that the opinion was not 

supported by “the greater objective medical evidence of record.” The ALJ did not 

indicate whether or how specific findings failed to support Feldman’s opinion. Just as 

the Commissioner was not substantially justified in defending procedural errors in Shafer, 

Defendant was not substantially justified in defending this case.1

 Plaintiff’s counsel submitted an itemized statement showing 37.20 hours were 

worked. Doc. 25-1 at 6-7. Having reviewed counsel’s statement and considered the fee 

award factors, see Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429-30 (1983), the Court finds the 

requested amount to be reasonable. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s application for attorney fees (Doc. 25) is granted. 

 

 

1

 Defendant argues that the Court was primarily concerned with “articulation standards,” and cites Seventh Circuit case law for the proposition that deficiencies in articulation alone generally do not warrant an award of attorney fees. This argument is not persuasive. Legal errors such as those committed by the ALJ here are procedural errors, and defense of such is not substantially justified under established Ninth Circuit 

precedent. 

Case 2:12-cv-02291-DGC Document 28 Filed 01/08/14 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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. Plaintiff is awarded $6,931.63 in attorney’s fees pursuant to Equal Access 

to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. 

 Dated this 8th day of January, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-02291-DGC Document 28 Filed 01/08/14 Page 4 of 4