Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01811/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01811-1/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 

Abdulbasit Abdullah, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Social Security Administration 

Commissioner, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-13-01811-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(d). The motion is fully briefed and no party has 

requested oral argument. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion. 

I. Background. 

 Plaintiff applied for disability and supplemental security insurance benefits on 

March 5, 2010, alleging disability beginning January 1, 2007. Doc. 15 at 2. After a 

hearing on October 14, 2011, an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an opinion on 

November 4, 2011, finding Plaintiff not disabled. A request for review was denied by the 

Appeals Council and the ALJ’s opinion became the Commissioner’s final decision on 

September 4, 2013. Doc. 15 at 2. 

 Plaintiff filed a complaint with this Court asking for review of the Commissioner’s 

decision. Doc. 1. On January 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed its opening brief, as well as a 

motion to supplement the record with additional evidence he had already submitted to the 

Appeals Council in 2012, including an assessment from Dr. Geary. Docs. 30 at 2; 14. 

Case 2:13-cv-01811-DGC Document 33 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 6
- 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 

Defendant acknowledged that these records had not been addressed by the Appeals 

Council and were relevant to the outcome of Plaintiff’s case. Doc. 30 at 2-3. As a result, 

Defendant filed a motion to remand on February 5, 2014. Doc. 16. Plaintiff opposed this 

motion, arguing that remand was unnecessary and instead seeking a final decision that he 

was entitled to benefits. Doc. 18. Because this Court found that there were several 

outstanding issues requiring resolution before a determination of disability could be 

made, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings. Doc. 20 at 3. Plaintiff now 

seeks to recover costs and attorney’s fees for legal work performed through the time 

Plaintiff’s counsel was able to confer with him and confirm in writing Defendant’s offer 

to remand. Doc. 29 at 5.

II. Legal Standard. 

 Under the EAJA, the Court must award attorney’s fees to a prevailing party unless 

the United States shows that its position was “substantially justified or that special 

circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see Gutierrez v. 

Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir.2001); Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 567 (9th 

Cir.1995) (“The EAJA creates a presumption that fees will be awarded to prevailing 

parties.”). In this case, Plaintiff is a prevailing party because the final administrative 

judgment denying his application for benefits was reversed and remanded for further 

consideration. Gutierrez, 274 F.3d at 1257 (“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.”). 

III. Was Defendant’s Position Substantially Justified? 

 Defendant argues that Plaintiff should be denied costs and attorney’s fees because 

the Commissioner’s initial defense of this case, before seeking remand, was substantially 

justified based on the information available to her at the time. Doc. 30 at 4. Defendant 

also argues that Plaintiff did not act with reasonable diligence when he submitted the 

records in question to the Appeals Council on May 21, 2012, a month after the deadline 

set by the Appeals Council. Id. at 7-8. 

Case 2:13-cv-01811-DGC Document 33 Filed 11/17/16 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

 The Supreme Court has held that a position may be substantially justified “if it has 

a reasonable basis in fact and law.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 566 n.2 (1988). 

When determining whether the government’s position was substantially justified, the 

Court considers “both the government’s litigation position and the underlying agency 

action giving rise to the civil action.” Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2013). 

 According to Defendant, “[w]ithin two weeks of the Plaintiff’s filing of evidence 

showing that he had previously submitted Dr. Geary’s record to the Appeals Council, the 

Commissioner filed a motion voluntarily seeking remand to address Dr. Geary’s 

records.” Id. at 7. But Plaintiff brought to Defendant’s attention on December 30, 2013 

the absence of Dr. Geary’s medical reports in the administrative record. Doc. 31-2. 

Plaintiff asked Defendant to stipulate that he could supplement the record with these 

documents. Id. Defendant indicated that it needed time to investigate the record and 

confirm that it was incomplete. Id. Plaintiff sought an unopposed motion, at the 

suggestion of Defendant, for an extension of time to file its opening brief while 

Defendant was investigating. Doc. 12. The parties engaged in several weeks of email 

correspondence concerning Plaintiff’s efforts to supplement the record. Id. at 1-7. 

Noting that Defendant had not reached any conclusions about the status of the record or 

provided any response to Plaintiff’s request to supplement, Plaintiff informed Defendant 

that it would file the motion to supplement and the opening brief. Doc. 31-2 at 1. The 

motion and brief were filed on January 22, 2014 (Docs. 14; 15), and Defendant 

responded with a motion to remand, based on Dr. Geary’s unconsidered reports, on 

February 5, 2014. Doc. 16. Thus, the question is whether Defendant’s continued 

opposition to Plaintiff’s claim, despite being advised that the Appeals Council had failed 

to consider relevant evidentiary reports, was substantially justified. The Court finds that 

it was not. 

 Defendant was informed of the missing reports by Plaintiff in late December. It 

provides no justification for continuing to oppose Plaintiff’s claim until February. Nor 

does it provide any evidence that the Appeals Council was justified in its failure to 

Case 2:13-cv-01811-DGC Document 33 Filed 11/17/16 Page 3 of 6
- 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 

consider Dr. Geary’s reports or its ultimate denial of Plaintiff’s claim, as will be further 

discussed below. 

IV. Did Special Circumstances Exist to Preclude an Award of Attorney’s Fees? 

 In the alternative, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion for costs and attorney’s 

fees should be denied under the special circumstances exception. This exception “gives 

‘the court discretion to deny awards where equitable considerations dictate an award 

should not be made.’” Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401, 423 (2004) (citing 

H.R.Rep. No. 96–1418, p. 11 (1980)). Defendants contend that “Plaintiff’s unexplained 

month-late submission of Dr. Geary’s records would make an award of attorney fees 

under the EAJA unjust[,]” and would “reward counsel’s lack of diligence and effectively 

send the message that Social Security claimants’ attorneys need not comply with agency 

deadlines and instructions – and, in fact, may recover fees even where they create the 

need for additional proceedings through their own failure to comply with agency 

deadlines and instructions.” Doc. 30 at 10, 11-12. 

 Defendant emphasizes that Plaintiff did not seek additional time to submit new 

evidence or follow up to ensure that Dr. Geary’s records were received by the 

government. Id. at 9. But Plaintiff provides evidence that his counsel sought a 30-day 

extension to submit supporting evidence to the Appeals Council. Doc. 31-1 at 2. In 

accordance with this extension, several supporting medical documents were submitted on 

May 21, 2012, including Dr. Geary’s medical reports. While Dr. Geary’s reports were 

not considered by the Appeals Council, other documents submitted alongside them were 

considered. Doc. 30 at 8. Therefore, Plaintiff’s submittal of evidentiary reports after the 

initial deadline does not appear to have affected the ability of the Appeals Council to 

review and address that information. 

 The Court finds no evidence in the record indicating that the Appeals Council 

found Plaintiff to have failed to exercise reasonable diligence in submitting these records. 

Additionally, Defendant does not contend that Plaintiff did not exercise reasonable 

diligence in informing the Commissioner of the Appeals Council’s failure to consider Dr. 

Case 2:13-cv-01811-DGC Document 33 Filed 11/17/16 Page 4 of 6
- 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 

Geary’s records or in seeking to supplement the record. Doc. 31-2 at 6. As discussed 

above, Plaintiff first brought the absence of Dr. Geary’s reports in the administrative 

record to the attention of Defendant on December 30, 2013, asking Defendant to stipulate 

that Plaintiff could supplement the record to include those documents. Id. 

 Defendant further contends that “Plaintiff and his attorney were arguably on notice 

that the Appeals Council had not received Dr. Geary’s records based on the conspicuous 

absence of any mention of these records in the Appeals Council’s denial of the request 

for review, while the same notice explicitly addressed the other four PDF files that 

Plaintiff had submitted.” Doc. 30 at 9. Even accepting this alleged notice, it is unclear 

how Plaintiff should have proceeded other than informing Defendant and filing for 

review of the Appeals Council’s decision, as he did. The fact that the absence was 

“conspicuous” only supports Plaintiff’s contention that the Commissioner’s continued 

opposition to Plaintiff’s complaint until after Plaintiff filed his opening brief was not 

substantially justified, as discussed above. 

 Finally, the Court is not convinced that an award of attorney’s fees in this case 

would encourage counsel to act without reasonable diligence in the future. Plaintiff’s 

counsel sought an extension to submit evidentiary reports, and there is no evidence that 

the Appeals Council found Plaintiff to have acted without reasonable diligence. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel made several efforts to bring the Appeals Council’s 

failure to the attention of Defendant and to reach an agreement concerning 

supplementation of the administrative record. Policy considerations also favor 

encouraging the government to cooperate with opposing parties and timely respond to 

their requests. The Court cannot conclude that Defendant has met its burden to show 

substantial justification or exceptional circumstances. 

V. Is the Amount of the Requested Fee Award Reasonable? 

Counsel submitted an itemized statement that shows he and his associate worked 

18.3 hours on the case, plus one hour for a reply in support of the motion. Doc. 29-1 at 2. 

Counsel also seeks $418.93 in costs associated with filing fees and mailings. Id. Having 

Case 2:13-cv-01811-DGC Document 33 Filed 11/17/16 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

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 

reviewed counsel’s statement and having considered the fee award factors, see Hensley v. 

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429–30 (1983), the Court finds that the total of 19.3 hours is not 

excessive. The Court will grant Plaintiff's motion and award $3,664.04 in attorney’s fees 

and $418.93 in costs.1

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (Doc. 29) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is awarded $4,082.97 pursuant to the EAJA

 Dated this 16th day of November, 2016. 

 

1

 Plaintiff requests a cost of living increase for the billed hours in accordance with 

rates set by the Ninth Circuit. See United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, http://www.ca9.uscourts. 

gov/content/view. php?pk_id=0000000039. These increases are granted. 

Case 2:13-cv-01811-DGC Document 33 Filed 11/17/16 Page 6 of 6