Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01049/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01049-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirruit 

MAY 2 - 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

HELEN Clerk J. PARKS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

OTIS R. BOWEN, in his official 

capacity as Secretary of the 

Department of Health & Human 

Services, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 88-1049 

(D.C. No. 87-K-1013) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before ANDERSOR, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant Helen Parks sought review of Secretary's 

final decision denying her application for SSDI and SSI benefits 

pursuant to 42 u.s.c. SS 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). The district 

court reversed the Secretary's decision and awarded benefits. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1049 Document: 010110106453 Date Filed: 05/02/1991 Page: 1 
Plaintiff then filed an application for attorneys' fees under 

the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 u.s.c. S 2412. The district 

court denied this application without explanation. This court 

partially remanded this case "for further proceedings to allow the 

district court to articulate the facts which support its 

order denying plaintiff's application for attorney's fees 

On remand, the district court offered the following 

explanation for its decision: 

I thought that it was a close factual case in the sense 

the plaintiff's condition required close evaluation as 

to whether it was so severe as to preclude light work 

I still felt that on the merits of the case, 

you could look at this ankle problem that she had and 

the other evidence that was present and still say that 

there was a justifiable argument to be made that she 

could do light work and, hence, was not disabled. 

The court, however, also noted: 

[A]t the time I entered this order, we didn't have the 

case law from the U.S. Supreme Court or from the court 

of appeals that indicates in the--on a very fine line, 

it seems to me, that Equal Access to Justice Act awards 

under more recent case law, and I allude specifically to 

Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization Services 

versus Jean, et al, decided June 4, 1990 by the Supreme 

Court, that the concept of what is a substantially 

justified · position has been elaborated upon by these 

courts. And so my decision today would probably have 

been to award attorneys fees. 

Plaintiff now appeals this decision. 

II 

Based on the record in this case, we agree with the district 

court that plaintiff is entitled to recover fees under the Supreme 

Court's recent decision in Commissioner. INS~ Jean, 110 s. Ct. 

2316 (1990). The Equal Access to Justice Act provides in 

pertinent part: 

Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a 

court shall award to a prevailing party other than the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-1049 Document: 010110106453 Date Filed: 05/02/1991 Page: 2 
United States fees and other 

court finds that the position 

substantially justified or 

make an award unjust. 

expenses, ... unless the 

of the United States was 

that special circumstances 

28 u.s.c. S 2412(d)(l)(a). The Secretary has the burden of 

proving the agency's position was substantially justified. See 

Kemp Yo!.. Bowen, 822 F.2d 966, 967 (10th Cir. 1987). The Supreme 

Court has held an agency's position is substantially justified if 

it is "justified in substance or in the main--that is, justified 

to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person." Pierce Yo!.. 

Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 553 (1988). 

To avoid a fee award, the Secretary must demonstrate both the 

agency's prelitigation conduct and its subsequent litigation 

positions were substantially justified. Jean, 110 s. Ct. at 2319. 

The Supreme Court noted in Jean that Congress intended "'to 

provide for attorney fees when an unjustifiable agency action 

forces litigation, and the agency then tries to avoid such 

liability by reasonable behavior during the litigation.'" Id. at 

2319 n.7 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 98-992, pp. 9, 13 (1984)). 

The district court denied plaintiff's fee application because 

it believed the agency's litigation positions were substantially 

justified. The court, however, did not consider the agency's 

actions giving rise to this litigation in reaching its decision. 

We must decide whether this conduct "would satisfy a reasonable 

person" to determine whether plaintiff is entitled to an award of 

attorneys' fees. 

The district court has provided the answer. In reversing the 

Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision denying plaintiff SSDI 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-1049 Document: 010110106453 Date Filed: 05/02/1991 Page: 3 
and SSI benefits, the district court found the agency's 

prelitigation conduct was unreasonable. The court concluded the 

ALJ (1) ignored a remand order from the Appeals Council; (2) 

misstated and ignored documentary evidence; (3) engaged in a "hunt 

and peck" fact-finding system contrary to the substance and thrust 

of the record; and (4) lacked substantial evidence to support his 

conclusions. Based on the Supreme Court's holding in Jean, 

plaintiff is entitled to attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to 

Justice Act. We therefore REVERSE the district court and REMAND 

for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-1049 Document: 010110106453 Date Filed: 05/02/1991 Page: 4