Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03903/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03903-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee
Shirley Shontos
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3903

___________

Shirley Shontos, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner *

of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant-Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 13, 2005

Filed: August 10, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, LAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In a prior appeal, a panel of this court held that Appellant Shirley Shontos was

entitled to Disabled Widow’s Benefits. Shontos v. Barnhart, 328 F.3d 418 (8th Cir.

2003). Subsequently, Shontos filed for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to

Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The Commissioner of Social Security

denied Shontos’s request for attorney’s fees and the district court affirmed, finding

that although Shontos eventually prevailed in her request for Disabled Widow’s

Benefits, the Commissioner was substantially justified in denying benefits to Shontos.

Appellate Case: 03-3903 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2005 Entry ID: 1938553
-2-

Shontos is entitled to attorney’s fees unless “the position of the United States

was substantially justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The Commissioner’s denial

of attorney’s fees is substantially justified if the government’s decision to deny

benefits to Shontos was “clearly reasonable, well founded in law and fact, solid

though not necessarily correct.” S.E.C. v. Kluesner, 834 F.2d 1438, 1440 (8th Cir.

1987) (quoting United States v. 1,378.65 Acres of Land, 794 F.2d 1313, 1318 (8th

Cir. 1986)) (emphasis in original). A district court’s order affirming the denial of

attorney’s fees under the EAJA is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. at 1439. 

“[T]he most powerful indicator of the reasonableness of the government’s

position is the rationale of the court’s majority opinion in the first appeal.” Lauer v.

Barnhart, 321 F.3d 762, 765 (8th Cir. 2003). In the first appeal, this court reversed

the district court because it gave insufficient weight to adverse evidence in the record.

Shontos, 328 F.3d at 421-24, 425-27. Although this court ordered that Shontos be

awarded disability benefits, the government’s decision to deny benefits to Shontos,

though incorrect, was reasonable. The government’s position was supported by

evidence in the record, and at the time the government chose to deny benefits to

Shontos, “reasonable people could differ as to [the appropriateness of the contested

action].” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988) (citations omitted); see also

Lauer, 321 F.3d at 765 (finding that the government’s position lacked “any evidence

in its support”). 

Accordingly, Shontos is not entitled to attorney’s fees under the EAJA, and the

order of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3903 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2005 Entry ID: 1938553