Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00543/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00543-1/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 

Eric Putnam, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael J. Astrue, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-00543-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 

 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to 

the Equal Access to Justice Act. (Doc. 34). The Court now rules on the Motion. 

I. Background 

 On April 23, 2010, a Social Security Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found 

Plaintiff “not disabled” under the Social Security Act. Plaintiff exhausted his appeals at 

the agency, and subsequently filed this lawsuit. This Court reversed and remanded the 

ALJ’s decision, finding error in the ALJ’s exclusive reliance on the Medical-Vocational 

Guidelines at 20 C.F.R. § 404(P) app. 2 (“grids”): 

. . . . The ALJ accepted the fact that Plaintiff has diminished use of his left 

hand, but concluded that this limitation is irrelevant because Plaintiff is 

right-handed and Plaintiff’s right hand is unaffected. (TR 26). However, 

because the ALJ accepts the fact that Plaintiff has diminished use of his left 

hand, Plaintiff is incapable of performing jobs requiring bilateral manual 

dexterity. 

Case 2:12-cv-00543-JAT Document 41 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

 Where a claimant is limited to sedentary work and has a permanent 

injury to one hand which precludes jobs requiring bilateral manual 

dexterity, reliance on the grids is legal error. Fife v. Heckler, 767 F.2d 

1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the ALJ committed legal error by 

relying on the grids in this case. 

 Moreover, where the grids “do not accurately and completely 

describe [Plaintiff’s] limitations,” “the ALJ [is] required to take the 

testimony of a vocational expert,” and failing to do so is reversible error. 

Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1104 (9th Cir. 1999) (emphasis in 

original). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s inability to use his left hand 

renders the grids inapplicable. Nonetheless, the ALJ failed to hear 

testimony from a vocational expert. Accordingly, the ALJ committed 

reversible error. 

(Doc. 32 at 12–13). 

 Plaintiff then filed the current Motion, requesting attorney’s fees and costs under 

the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). 

II. Discussion 

On a motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the EAJA, a prevailing party 

is entitled to attorney’s fees unless the government’s position was substantially justified 

or special circumstances would make an award unjust. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); 

Perez-Arellano v. Smith, 279 F.3d 791, 793 (9th Cir. 2002). Under the EAJA, the 

government’s position includes both its litigating position 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). 

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has defined “substantially justified” as “justified to a 

degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 

(1988) (affirming Ninth Circuit’s holding that substantially justified means having a 

reasonable basis both in law and fact); see also Abela v. Gustafson, 888 F.2d 1258, 1264 

(9th Cir. 1989). The government bears the burden of showing that its position was 

Case 2:12-cv-00543-JAT Document 41 Filed 01/12/15 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

substantially justified. Gonzales v. Free Speech Coalition, 408 F.3d 613, 618 (9th Cir. 

2005). 

 The Government correctly points out that the standard of review of a social 

security decision (“substantial evidence” standard) and the standard for awarding EAJA 

attorney’s fees (“substantially justified” standard) are not synonymous. The Ninth Circuit 

has made clear, however, that because the reversal of an agency decision is a “strong 

indication” that the agency’s position was not substantially justified, it would be 

“unusual” to reverse an agency decision and not award attorney’s fees under the EAJA. 

Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 872 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 

F.3d 870, 874 (9th Cir.2005)). 

 The error at issue here is the ALJ’s failure to utilize a vocational expert in light of 

the fact that Plaintiff’s left hand injury rendered the grids inapplicable. (Doc. 32 at 12–

13). The Ninth Circuit has held that the grids can be used to determine that a claimant is 

not disabled only under certain circumstances: 

 The grids are an administrative tool the Secretary may rely on when 

considering claimants with substantially uniform levels of impairment. 

They may be used, however, only when the grids accurately and completely 

describe the claimant’s abilities and limitations. When a claimant’s nonexertional limitations are “sufficiently severe” so as to significantly limit 

the range of work permitted by the claimant’s exertional limitations, the 

grids are inapplicable. In such instances, the Secretary must take the 

testimony of a vocational expert, and identify specific jobs within the 

claimant’s capabilities. 

Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1340 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal quotations and citations 

omitted). This Court held that the ALJ erred by relying on the grids to deem Plaintiff not 

disabled, despite finding Plaintiff had diminished use of his left hand—a limitation which 

the grids do not take into account. (Doc. 32 at 12–13). 

 Plaintiff argues that this error was not substantially justified because the ALJ’s 

Case 2:12-cv-00543-JAT Document 41 Filed 01/12/15 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

error was a legal mistake and thus cannot be a close question. Plaintiff points out that this 

Court relied on Ninth Circuit case law to determine that the ALJ erroneously relied 

exclusively on the grids, and that under S.S.R. 85-15, limitations on dexterity narrow the 

number of jobs a claimant can perform. 

 The Government argues that the ALJ was substantially justified in not using a 

vocational expert because Plaintiff’s injuries were arguably not severe. The Government 

reasons that the ALJ “did not include a manipulative limitation in his residual functional 

capacity assessment, and expressly relied upon the residual functional capacity 

assessment of Robert Estes, M.D., who found no manipulative impairment.” (Id.) 

(internal emphasis and citations omitted). The Government also points out that 

“neurologists Harry S. Morehead, M.D., and Daniela Caltaru, M.D., concluded that 

Plaintiff’s left-sided weakness was nonphysiologic or ‘rather functional,’ indicating that 

they found the nature and extent of such limitation questionable.” (Id.). Furthermore, the 

Government argues that S.S.R. 85-15, cited by Plaintiff, specifically notes that a 

vocational expert “would not ordinarily be required where a person has a loss of ability to 

feel the size, shape, temperature, or texture of an object by the fingertips, since this is a 

function required in very few jobs.” In short, because the severity of Plaintiff’s left arm 

injury was “questionable” and the need for a vocational expert is not always needed to 

make these determinations, the Government argues that it was a close question whether 

the ALJ could rely solely on the grids to make a disability determination. 

 The Court agrees with the Government. Reasonable minds could disagree as to 

whether Plaintiff’s left hand injury “sufficiently severe” to require a vocational expert. 

Burkhart v. Bowen, 856 F.2d 1335, 1340 (9th Cir. 1988). Indeed, as the Government 

points out, there was testimony on the record that Plaintiff’s left hand injury was not very 

severe, and that his left-sided weakness was questionable. Additionally, S.S.R. 85-15 

does not definitively require vocational experts to be used in all cases involving 

limitations on fingering or manipulation. Rather, the rule specifically states that such 

experts “may be needed,” and that even where a claimant has lost the ability to feel the 

Case 2:12-cv-00543-JAT Document 41 Filed 01/12/15 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

size, shape, temperature, or texture of objects with his hand, a vocational expert “would 

not ordinarily be needed.” Therefore, although the Court found that a vocational expert 

should have been used, the ALJ’s failure to obtain vocational expert testimony was 

substantially justified. 

III. Conclusion 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant 

to the Equal Access to Justice Act, (Doc. 34), is DENIED. 

 Dated this 12th day of January, 2015. 

Case 2:12-cv-00543-JAT Document 41 Filed 01/12/15 Page 5 of 5