Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02098/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02098-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:427 Social Security Benefits

---

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

Gregory J. Hostrawser, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-2098-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Mr. Gregory J. Hostrawser’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for

Attorney’s Fees (Doc. #44) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. §

2412(d). After reviewing the Motion, the Commissioner’s Response (Doc. #49), and

Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. #55), the Court denies the Motion.

I. Background and Procedural History

On October 1, 2004, Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits

under Title II of the Social Security Act. (Doc. #36 at 1). The Administrative Law Judge

(“ALJ”) denied his benefits claim, finding that “although Plaintiff ha[d] severe impairments

of obesity, hypertension, a history of a shoulder disorder, a back disorder, and lack[ed]

residual functional capacity to perform his past work, he [was] able to perform other light

work.” (Doc. #36 at 2). Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Court seeking judicial review

of the ALJ’s final decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. #36 at 2). 

Case 2:07-cv-02098-JAT Document 60 Filed 07/07/10 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

On September 5, 2008, the Court affirmed the ALJ’s final decision to deny Plaintiff’s

disability benefits. (Doc. # 36 at 26). The Court specifically held that the ALJ’s decision

was adequately supported by evidence on the record and was not in legal error. (Doc. #36

at 26). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision on

appeal and remanded for an award of benefits. (Doc. #50-1 at 1). Plaintiff now seeks

$23,884.52 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. §

2412(d). (Doc. #55 at 1).

II. Discussion

A. Legal Standard

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); PerezArellano 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 substantially justified. Gonzales v. Free

Speech Coalition, 408 F.3d 613, 618 (9th Cir. 2005).

B. Analysis

The primary issue before the Court is whether the Commissioner’s position in

defending the underlying action was substantially justified. See Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d

562, 566 (9th Cir. 1995). There is no dispute as to whether Plaintiff prevailed in obtaining

social security benefits. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ALJ’s denial and

remanded for an award of benefits. (Doc. #50-1 at 1). However, “the fact that one other

Case 2:07-cv-02098-JAT Document 60 Filed 07/07/10 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

court agreed or disagreed with the Government does not establish whether its position was

substantially justified.” Pierce, 487 U.S. at 596. Although Plaintiff agrees that the reversal

does not resolve the issue of attorney’s fees, he does argue that “it is not irrelevant that the

Commissioner’s position was so lacking in merit that the Ninth Circuit remanded for

immediate payment of benefits . . . .” (Doc. #55 at 3). The Court disagrees that the

Commissioner’s position lacked merit.

While it is true that the Court’s decision to affirm the ALJ’s denial of benefits is not

determinative, Ore Natural Resources Council v. Madigna, 980 F.2d 1330, 1332 (9th Cir.

1992), Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney’s fees under the EAJA because the record supports

the substantial reasonableness of the Commissioner’s position. In evaluating the availability

of disability benefits, the ALJ determined “Plaintiff [did] not have an impairment or

combination of impairments that meets or equals one of the listed impairments in 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1520(d), 404.1525 and 404.1526 because the medical evidence [did] not establish

limitations of listing level severity.” (Doc. #36 at 9). Specifically, Plaintiff had the “residual

functional capacity” to perform light work despite any physical impairments. (Doc. # 36 at

10).

The ALJ relied upon both medical evidence and Plaintiff’s testimony to reach this

conclusion. The ALJ gave weight to the assessments of several non-treating physicians. Dr.

Drinkwater, Dr. Rand, and Dr. Raymond determined Plaintiff’s back and leg pain did not

prevent him from doing even light work. (Doc. #36 at 20-26). The Commissioner properly

relied on the medical opinions of these non-treating physicians.

The physicians’ assessments contradicted the severity of Plaintiff’s physical

limitations. For example, Dr. Drinkwater reported Plaintiff had “decreased range in his

lumbar spine,” but that he had “full plus strength in his upper extremities” with an

abnormality in the lower left extremity. (Doc. #36 at 14). Dr. Raymond’s opinion states, in

part: “[Plaintiff] had functional range of motion of the lower extremities but had back pain

with internal rotation of the left hip. He had intact reflexes and intact sensation except for

Case 2:07-cv-02098-JAT Document 60 Filed 07/07/10 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

the dorsum of the left foot.” (Doc. #35 at 14). Dr. Raymond also found Plaintiff would be

able to frequently lift ten pounds, and occasionally lift twenty pounds, while also being able

to stand or sit for six hours in an eight-hour workday. (Doc. #35 at 16). Further, although

the record is unclear as to the duration of Dr. Rand’s examination, he was able to interview

Plaintiff, observe his mobility, and make a diagnosis based upon previous medical records.

(Doc. #35 at 16). He also found Plaintiff was capable of performing light work. (Doc. #35

at 16).

The ALJ also concluded Plaintiff’s personal activities and part-time work contradicted

his testimony regarding the severity of his pain and impairments. The Ninth Circuit has

noted the ALJ may reject the claimant’s testimony due to a lack of credibility, but the ALJ

must provide clear and convincing reasons to justify the rejection. Holohan v. Massanari,

246 F.3d 1195, 1208 (9th Cir. 2001). Further, the ALJ must specifically identify the

testimony that he rejects as not credible and must explain what evidence undermines the

testimony. Id. 

First, Plaintiff failed to disclose income he obtained through part-time plumbing work.

Second, Plaintiff provided inconsistent statements regarding his international travel. The

dissenting Ninth Circuit judge noted this discrepancy in his opinion: 

At the hearing, [Plaintiff] testified that he took two trips, one to the Ukraine

and one to Minnesota. On January 10, 2005, his doctor noted that he had just

returned from Europe the night before, and on November 21, 2005, medical

records show that he hurt his knee while traveling in Russia the week before.

(Doc. #49-2 at 5). Although this evidence does not indicate that Plaintiff was physically able

to do plumbing full-time, it does provide a reasonable basis for the Commissioner’s denial

of benefits. Plaintiff was actually working, albeit not full-time, and this failure to disclose

provided a basis for the ALJ to question his credibility; specifically, whether the testimony

actually reflected his pain’s severity. While the Ninth Circuit held this evidence did not form

a “clear and convincing” basis for questioning Plaintiff’s credibility, attorney’s fees under

the EAJA are instead evaluated under a standard of reasonableness. Pierce, 487 U.S. at 565;

Case 2:07-cv-02098-JAT Document 60 Filed 07/07/10 Page 4 of 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 - 5 -

see also Moore v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 278 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting

that the clear and convincing standard “is the most demanding require[ment] in Social

Security cases.”). The Plaintiff’s disputed credibility, along with competing physician

testimony, leads the Court to believe the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified.

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal

Access to Justice Act must be denied.

III. Conclusion

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

the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. #44) is DENIED.

DATED this 7th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:07-cv-02098-JAT Document 60 Filed 07/07/10 Page 5 of 5