Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00524/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00524-1/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

Paul Andrew Pope, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 10-524-TUC-GEE

ORDER

Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant

to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), filed on December 19, 2011. (Doc. 29)

The plaintiff filed this action for review of the final decision of the Commissioner for

Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In an order issued on September 20, 2011, this

court reversed the Commissioner’s final decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $7288.97 pursuant to the

EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Doc. 29) The defendant filed a response arguing the motion for

attorney’s fees should be denied because the government’s position was substantially justified.

(Doc. 30) The plaintiff filed a reply in which he argues he is entitled to an additional $1,443.36

for litigating this motion. (Doc. 31)

Case 4:10-cv-00524-GEE Document 32 Filed 02/09/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Discussion

Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA):

[A] court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and

other expenses ... incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases

sounding in tort), including proceedings for judicial review of agency action,

brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that

action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was

substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.

Shafer v. Astrue, 518 F.3d 1067, 1071 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A))

(emphasis added). The phrase “fees and other expenses” includes reasonable attorney’s fees.

Shafer, 518 F.3d at 1071. “[T]he specific purpose of the EAJA is to eliminate for the average

person the financial disincentive to challenge unreasonable governmental actions.”

Commissioner, I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163, 110 S.Ct. 2316, 2321- 2322 (1990).

The plaintiff in this case argues that attorney’s fees in the amount of $8,732.33 should

be awarded. The Commissioner argues the motion should be denied because the government’s

position was “substantially justified.” (Doc. 30)

“‘Substantial justification’ under the EAJA means that the government’s position must

have a reasonable basis in law and fact.” Shafer, 518 F.3d at 1071. “Put another way,

substantially justified means there is a dispute over which reasonable minds could differ.”

Gonzales v. Free Speech Coalition, 408 F.3d 613, 618 (9th Cir. 2005) (punctuation omitted).

In this case, the ALJ found Pope was not disabled because he could work as an

assembler, wrapper, or surveillance systems monitor. (Doc. 27, p. 8) The court found the

decision of the ALJ was not supported by substantial evidence because at least two of those jobs

require repetitive fine motor activity whereas Pope has been diagnosed with carpal tunnel

syndrome and considered a candidate for surgery. (Doc. 27, p. 11) The carpal tunnel diagnosis

was made after the ALJ rendered her opinion, but it was submitted to the Appeals Council and

included in the administrative record. The Appeals Council accepted Pope’s new medical

evidence but nevertheless denied review. 

In its defense of the ALJ’s opinion, the Commissioner argued, among other things, that

newly submitted medical records should not be considered when evaluating the decision of the

Case 4:10-cv-00524-GEE Document 32 Filed 02/09/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

ALJ. The Commissioner argues here that its litigation position was substantially justified

because the case law in the Ninth Circuit on this issue is “somewhat unsettled.” (Doc. 30, p.

4) This court, however, must consider not only the litigation posture of the agency, but its

prelitgation position as well. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B); Shafer, 518 F.3d at 1071 (“The

government’s position must be substantially justified at each stage of the proceedings.”). 

The court finds that the Appeals Council was not substantially justified in refusing

Pope’s request for review in light of the new and material evidence presented of his carpal

tunnel diagnosis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.970(b). The ALJ concluded Pope was not disabled

because he could work as an assembler, wrapper, or surveillance systems monitor. (Doc. 27,

p. 8) Pope, however, has been diagnosed with carpal tunnel disease severe enough to make him

a candidate for surgery. This condition materially affects his ability to work at a job requiring

repetitive fine motor activity such as an assembler or wrapper. Reasonable minds could not

differ on this issue. See, e.g., Troyer v. Heckler, 613 F.Supp. 1219 (D.C. Kan. 1985) (Appeals

Council was not substantially justified in refusing to correct the ALJ’s decision after submission

of new evidence from claimant’s treating physician.). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal

Access to Justice Act (EAJA), filed on December 19, 2011, is GRANTED in PART. (Doc. 29)

The plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $8,732.33.

 Plaintiff’s counsel moves that EAJA fees be paid directly to him based on Pope’s

assignment dated June 24, 2008. (Doc. 29-1) This assignment, however, runs afoul of the

Assignment of Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3727(b), which forbids the assignment of claims against

the U.S. government until after those claims are actually allowed. Accordingly, this court will

not order the Commissioner to issue payment directly to Pope’s attorney.

DATED this 8th day of February, 2012.

Case 4:10-cv-00524-GEE Document 32 Filed 02/09/12 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

Case 4:10-cv-00524-GEE Document 32 Filed 02/09/12 Page 4 of 4