N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HAEL D. M C LEAN, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, Ac ting C om m issione r of the Soc ia l Se c urity Adm inistra

tion, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-35204 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-05763-B HS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington B e nja m in H. Se ttle , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 7, 2016 ** B e fore : PREGER SON, LEAVY a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. Afte r an Adm inistra

tive La w Judge (“ ALJ” ) issue d a pa rtia lly favora ble de c ision, M ic ha e l M c Le a n file d a c om pla int for judic ia l re v i e w in fe de ra l distric t



# FIL ED APR 15 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c ourt. The distric t c ourt e nte re d judgm e nt in fa

vor of M c Le a

n, re ve rsing a

nd re m anding for furthe r proc e e dings. Thedistric t c o urt, howe ve r, de nie d

M c Le an’ s m otion for a

ttorne y s fe e s unde r the Equa l Ac c e ss to Justic e Ac t (“ E AJA” ). M c L e an a ppe a l s only

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing his motion for a ttorne y s fe e s unde r EAJA. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision de ny ing a

ttorne y s fe e s for a

buse of disc re t ion. Tobe le r v . C olv in , 749 F.3d 830, 832 (9th C ir. 2014). W e re ve rse and re m and for a n a w ard of fe e s be c a use the ALJ’ s de c ision tha t M c Le a n e xpe rie nc e d

m e dic a l im

prove m e nt on Oc tobe r 25, 2007, wa s not substa ntia lly justifie d. First, theALJ fa ile d to disc uss signific ant, proba tive re c ord e vide nc e tha

t wa s c le arly

c ontra ry to he r finding tha

t M c Le an stoppe d ta

king his me dic ation due to a n im prove m e nt in his sy

m ptom s. The ALJ’ s m i sc ha ra c te riz at ion of, a

nd fa ilure to we igh prope rly , the re c ord e vide nc e c annot besa id to bejustifie d to a de gre e that c ould sa t isfy a re a s ona ble pe rson. Me ie r v . C

olv in , 727 F.3d 867, 870, 872 (9th C ir. 2013); c

f. Sampson v. C

hate r , 103 F.3d 918, 921–22 (9th C ir. 1996). Se c ond, theALJ viola

te d the a ge nc y ’ s own re gula tions in failing to disc

uss the side e ffe c ts of M c Le an’ s m e d ic ation a nd fa iling to addre ss e xplic itly whe the r the side e ffe c ts supporte d a de quat e ly the de c ision to tem

pora rily disc ontinueuse of his 2m e nta l he a l th m e dic ation. G utie rre z v . Barnhart , 274 F.3d 1255, 1259 (9th C ir. 2001); SSR

96-7p, 1996 W

L 374186 (July

2, 1996); 20 C .F.R . §§ 404.1529(c )(3)(iv), 416.929(c )(3)(iv). The ALJ’ s fa ilure to c re dit M c Le an’ s sym ptom te stim ony

wa s not ha

rm le ss be c a

use it a ffe c te d

the ultim ate de te rm i nation tha

t he e xpe rie nc e d m e dic a l im prove m e nt a s of Oc tobe r 25, 2007. Molina v . Astrue , 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th C ir. 2012). Whe re , a s he re , the ALJ’ s de c ision wa s not substa ntia lly justifie d, this c ourt ne e d not re a c h the issue of whe the r the C om m issione r’ s litiga

tion position wa s substa ntia lly justifie d. Tobe le r , 749 F.3d a t 832. W e the re fore re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s orde r and re m and for a n a ward of EAJA fe e s. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

3