Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08217/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08217-1/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

Ronald L. Ring, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social

Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-08217-PCT-NVW

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal

Access to Justice Act (Doc. 18).

I. Background

Ring has hepatitis C, liver cirrhosis, and osteoarthritis in his right knee. He also is

morbidly obese. Ring protectively applied for disability insurance benefits and

supplemental security income, alleging disability since December 7, 2007. On December

9, 2009, Ring appeared and testified at an administrative hearing at which he was

represented by counsel. Victoria Rei, an impartial vocational expert, also appeared and

testified telephonically at the hearing. 

On February 10, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued a decision

that Ring was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, which

subsequently became the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision. On

Case 3:10-cv-08217-NVW Document 22 Filed 03/13/12 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 -

November 10, 2011, the Court vacated the final decision of the Commissioner and

remanded the case for further proceedings.

Ring seeks an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) in the

amount of $6,432.80 and costs in the amount of $350.00. The Commissioner opposes

Ring’s motion only on the ground that his position was substantially justified. The

Commissioner does not object to the amount of award requested. 

II. Legal Standard

 On a motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice

Act (“EAJA”), a prevailing party is entitled to attorney’s fees “unless th[is] court finds

that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special

circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). 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). Here,

then, it includes the ALJ’s decision and the Commissioner’s arguments to this Court in

defense of the ALJ’s decision. 

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). 

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).

III. Analysis

As previously found, substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s finding that

Ring’s skills acquired from past relevant work are transferable to other occupations with

jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy. Specifically, the ALJ failed

to elicit whether the vocational expert’s testimony that a person with Ring’s limitation to

occasional kneeling could perform the job of “parts and order clerk,” whether the

vocational expert’s opinion conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, and, if

so, whether there was a legitimate explanation for the conflict. The ALJ plainly failed to

Case 3:10-cv-08217-NVW Document 22 Filed 03/13/12 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 -

fulfill his special duty to fully and fairly develop the record. See Smolen v. Chater, 80

F.3d 1273, 1288 (9th Cir. 1996).

Moreover, the Commissioner was not substantially justified in defending the

ALJ’s oversight in performing routine questioning of a vocational expert. Special

circumstances do not make a fee award unjust, and the EAJA therefore requires the Court

to award Ring attorneys’ fees and other expenses.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 18) is granted. Plaintiff is awarded fees

in the amount of $6,432.80 and costs in the amount of $350.00.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff in

the amount of $6,432.80 for attorneys’ fees and $350.00 for costs against Defendant, with

interest at the federal judgment rate from the date of entry of judgment.

DATED this 13th day of March, 2012.

Case 3:10-cv-08217-NVW Document 22 Filed 03/13/12 Page 3 of 3