Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01075/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01075-1/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

Avram J. Ellman, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner

of Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV 13-1075-PHX-MHB

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Avram J. Ellman’s application for attorney fees

under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) (Doc. 32). After reviewing the arguments

of the parties, the Court now issues the following ruling.

In early 2011, Plaintiff filed applications for disability insurance benefits and

supplemental security income alleging disability beginning January 1, 2008. (Transcript of

Administrative Record (“Tr.”) at 173, 178-80.) Plaintiff’s claims were denied initially and

on reconsideration. (Tr. at 73-74, 97-98.) Thereafter, Plaintiff requested a hearing before

an administrative law judge, and a hearing was held on February 9, 2012. (Tr. at 24-72.)

Afterwards, the ALJ issued a decision finding that Plaintiff was not disabled. (Tr. at

121-135.) The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for review, (Tr. at 1-3), making

the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissioner. Plaintiff then sought judicial

review of the ALJ’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

This Court, after reviewing the administrative record and the arguments of the parties,

remanded this matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings. (Doc. 30.) Specifically,

Case 2:13-cv-01075-MHB Document 39 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

the Court vacated the ALJ’s decision concluding that although the ALJ set forth some proper

explanations for her conclusions, she committed several errors as well. The Court found that

the ALJ’s errors were consequential to the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff was not disabled, and

therefore undermined her ultimate conclusion. The Court then remanded this matter for

further consideration and explanation. (Doc. 30.)

A prevailing party in an action against the United States is entitled to an award of

attorney fees and costs under the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), unless the government’s

position was “substantially justified.” The government’s position is substantially justified

“if a reasonable person could think it correct, that is, if it has a reasonable basis in law and

fact.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 566 n.2 (1988).

It is undisputed that Plaintiff is the prevailing party. Therefore, the issue before the

Court is whether Defendant’s position in opposing Plaintiff’s appeal was “substantially

justified.” Shafer v. Astrue, 518 F.3d 1067, 1071 (9th Cir. 2008).

Under the EAJA, “substantial justification” means that “‘the government’s position

must have a reasonable basis in law and fact.’” Shafer, 518 F.3d at 1071 (quoting Corbin v.

Apfel, 149 F.3d 1051, 1052 (9th Cir. 1998)). “Where ... the ALJ’s decision was reversed on

the basis of procedural errors, the question is not whether [Defendant’s] position as to the

merits of [Plaintiff’s] disability claim was substantially justified. Rather, the relevant

question is whether [Defendant’s] decision to defend on appeal the procedural errors

committed by the ALJ was substantially justified.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citations

omitted).

Regarding the objective medical evidence, the Court found that, although the ALJ

extensively documented the medical source assessments and opinion evidence, she failed to

clearly identify the conflicts in the evidence, and after weighing the evidence, how she

reached the conclusion that one opinion should be given more weight than the other. The

Court found that the ALJ’s conclusion was clear – but her reasoning was not. (Doc. 30.)

As to Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, the Court determined that the ALJ did not

make extensive credibility findings or identify several clear and convincing reasons

Case 2:13-cv-01075-MHB Document 39 Filed 05/22/15 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

supported by the record for discounting Plaintiff’s statements regarding his limitations.

While the ALJ detailed Plaintiff’s activities of daily living, she did not explain how these

activities were inconsistent with other evidence of record. The ALJ’s only stated basis for

discounting Plaintiff’s reported limitations was that they may be inconsistent with the

residual functional capacity assessment. The Court found that this was not a proper basis for

discounting Plaintiff’s statements. (Doc. 30.)

In sum, the Court concluded that the ALJ committed several errors, vacated her

decision, and remanded the case stating, “further administrative proceedings would serve the

interest of allowing the ALJ to set forth sufficiently clear explanations for her weighing of

the medical source evidence and the weighing of, and the credibility assessment of Plaintiff’s

subjective complaints ... the errors the Court has noted concern the sufficiency of the ALJ’s

explanations – not the accuracy of her conclusions.” (Doc. 30.)

Accordingly, based on the record before the Court, the Court concludes that

Defendant’s decision to defend the ALJ’s determination was substantially justified.

Although the Court ultimately vacated the ALJ’s decision and remanded this matter for

further consideration and explanation, the record supports a finding that reasonable minds

could have differed concerning the inferences made by the ALJ as well as the sufficiency of

detail provided by the ALJ in her decision. As such, Plaintiff’s application for attorney fees

under the EAJA will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for attorney fees under the Equal Access

to Justice Act (Doc. 32) is DENIED.

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2015.

Case 2:13-cv-01075-MHB Document 39 Filed 05/22/15 Page 3 of 3