Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01659/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01659-1/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

Crystal A. Moya, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Commissioner of

Social Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-01659-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees (doc. 16),

defendant’s response (doc. 17), and plaintiff’s reply (doc. 18).

On July 11, 2013, we entered an order reversing the decision of the Commissioner and

remanding the case for further administrative proceedings, in light of our conclusion that the

ALJ erred in characterizing plaintiff’s past relevant work and in failing to provide clear and

convincing reasons for rejecting plaintiff’s treating physician’s opinion. Plaintiff now moves

for an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,762.02 under the Equal Access to Justice

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (“EAJA”) and reimbursement of costs in the amount of $350.00. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), a party prevailing against the United States is

entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if the position of the United

States was not “substantially justified.” It is the government’s burden to show substantial

justification. Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir. 2001). The government’s

Case 2:12-cv-01659-FJM Document 19 Filed 11/05/13 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 -

position is substantially justified when it has a reasonable basis in both law and fact. Lewis

v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2002). We look to both “the position taken by the

United States in the civil action, [and] the action or failure to act by the agency upon which

the civil action is based.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(D). 

With respect to the first issue, the vocational expert classified the exertional levels for

the dental assistant and office manager parts of plaintiff’s former job as light and sedentary,

respectively. Nevertheless, the ALJ considered only the sedentary office manager functions

and improperly concluded that plaintiff could perform her past relevant work. This

conclusion was not substantially justified. Moreover, the government’s litigation defending

the ALJ’s error also lacked substantial justification. 

With respect to the second issue, the ALJ gave no specific reason for rejecting Dr.

Finley’s opinion. This was also error without substantial justification. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff’s motion for an award of

attorney’s fees and costs under the EAJA (doc. 16). Plaintiff is awarded $6,762.02 in fees

and $350.00 in costs. 

We reject plaintiff’s request that the award of fees be paid directly to her lawyer based

on an executed assignment of her right to EAJA fees. Fees awarded under the EAJA are

subject to a federal administrative offset if the litigant has outstanding federal debts. Astrue

v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, ___, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 2527 (2010). We do not know whether

plaintiff owes a debt that is subject to offset. The Commissioner has indicated that after

receiving our fee order, it will determine whether plaintiff has assigned her right to EAJA

fees to her attorney and whether plaintiff owes a debt that is subject to offset. If no debt is

owed and a valid assignment is in place, the Commissioner will make the

 award check payable to plaintiff’s counsel. 

DATED this 4th day of November, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01659-FJM Document 19 Filed 11/05/13 Page 2 of 2