Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00135/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00135-1/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 

Anthony Gable, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

Defendant.

No. CV-13-00135-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff brought this action for judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 

after his application for disability benefits was denied. Doc. 1. The Court reversed 

Defendant’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Doc. 22. Plaintiff 

has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 2412 (“EAJA”). Doc. 23. The motion is fully briefed and no party has 

requested oral argument. For reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion and 

award Plaintiff attorney’s fees in the amount of $7,415.36. 

 “The EAJA creates a presumption that fees will be awarded to prevailing parties.” 

Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 567 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff is a prevailing party 

because this matter was remanded pursuant to sentence four of the Social Security Act, 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. 22; see Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 301 (1993);

Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court should award 

reasonable attorney’s fees under the EAJA unless Defendant shows that his position in 

this case was “substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see Gutierrez, 274 F.3d at 1258. A position is substantially 

Case 2:13-cv-00135-DGC Document 26 Filed 12/19/13 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

justified “if it has a reasonable basis in fact and law.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 

552, 566 n.2 (1988). 

 Defendant does not contend that an award of fees in this case would be unjust, but 

instead argues that her position was reasonable and therefore substantially justified. 

Doc. 24 at 6. In this case, the Court found that the ALJ committed legal error by finding 

that Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his 

symptoms were not credible, but failing to identify contradictions between Plaintiff’s 

testimony and medical evidence. Doc. 22 at 6. Defendant argues that even though the 

ALJ’s position lacked sufficient explanation, it was nonetheless supported by the record 

and therefore substantially justified. Doc. 24 at 6. It is well-settled, however, that the 

ALJ must provide “specific, clear and convincing reasons” for finding a claimant’s 

testimony not credible, and that the ALJ’s decision cannot be supported on grounds the 

ALJ did not identify. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996). Because the 

ALJ’s decision did not provide such reasons, Defendant’s position did not have a 

“reasonable basis in law” and was not substantially justified. 

 Plaintiff’s counsel, Julie L. Glover, has filed an affidavit (Doc. 23-4) and an 

itemized statement of fees (Doc. 23-2) showing that she worked 39.75 hours on this case. 

Having reviewed the affidavit and the statement of fees, and having considered the 

relevant fee award factors, see Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429-30 & n.3 (1983), 

the Court finds that the amount of the requested fee award is reasonable. 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (Doc. 23) is granted. 

 2. Plaintiff is awarded $7,415.36 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 

28 U.S.C. § 2412. 

 Dated this 19th day of December, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-00135-DGC Document 26 Filed 12/19/13 Page 2 of 2