N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KATHLEEN ALLEN-HOW ARD, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. C OM M ISSIONER

SOC IAL SEC UR ITY ADM INISTR

ATION, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-35275 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-01116-R E M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Jam e s A. R e dde n, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d July

9, 2015 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : PREGER SON, N.R . SM ITH, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s . Kathle e n Alle n-Howa

rd a ppe a ls the distric t

c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing he r m otion for attorne y ’ s fe e s m a de pursua nt to theEqua l Ac c e ss to Justic e Ac t (“ EAJA” ).



# FIL ED AUG 25 2015 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).W e re vie w“ the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a ttorne y ’ s fe e s unde r EAJA for a n a buse of disc re tion.” Me ie r v . C olv in , 727 F.3d 867, 869 (9th C ir. 2013). W e a ffirm
.

“ [A] c ourt sha ll a

ward to a pre va iling pa

rty othe r tha n the Unite d State s fe e s . . . inc urre d

by tha t pa rty in a ny c ivil a c tion . . . unle ss the c ourt finds tha t the position of the Unite d State s wa s substa ntia lly justifie d or tha

t spe c ia l c irc um s ta nc e s m ake an a

ward unjust.”28 U.S.C . § 2412(d)(1)(A). The“ ‘ p osition of the Unite d State s’ m e ans, in a ddition to the position ta

ke n by the Unite d State s in the c ivil a c tion, thea c tion or fa ilure to a c t by the a ge nc y

upon whic h the c ivil a c tion is ba se d.” Id. § 2412(d)(2)(D). In de te rm ining whe the r the position of the Unite d State s wa s substa

ntia lly justifie d, we “ foc us on two que stions: first, whe t he r the g ove rnm e nt wa s substa ntia lly justifie d in ta

king its origina

l a c tion; a nd, se c ond, whe the r the gove rnm e n t wa s substa ntia lly justifie d in de fe nding theva lidity of the a c tion in c ourt.” Gutie rre z v . Barnhart , 274 F.3d 1255, 1259 (9th C i r. 2001) (quoting K

ali v . Bow e n , 854 F.2d 329, 332 (9th C ir. 1988)) (inte rna l quota tion
m arks om itte d). The Unite d State s be a rs the burde n

of de m onstra

ting tha t its position wa s substa

ntia lly justifie d, m e aning “ the gove rnm e nt’ s position m ust ha ve a ‘ re a sona ble ba sis both in la

w a nd fa c t.’ ” Me ie r , 727 F.3d a t 870 (quoting P ie rc e v . Unde rw ood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988)).

2In orde r to de te rm ine whe the r the C om m issione r’ s position wa s substa ntia lly justifie d, we m

u st look to the

Adm inistra

tive La w Judge ’ s (“ ALJ” ) initia l de c ision to de ny Alle n -Howa

rd soc ia l se c urity

be ne fits. Me i e r , 727 F.3d a t 870 (“ In the soc i a l se c urity

c onte xt, we have c onsiste ntly tre ate d the ALJ’ s de c ision a s the

‘ a c tion or fa i lure to a c t

by the a ge nc y

upon whic h the c ivil a c tion is ba se d.’ ” ). The ALJ de n ie d Alle n -Howa

rd be ne fits without dete rm ining whe the r Alle n -Howa rd’ s re sidua l func t iona l c a

pa c ity (“ RFC ” ) for “ 1 to 2 ste p ta s ks” c onflic te d with R e a soning Le ve ls 2 a

nd 3 in theDic tiona

ry of Oc c upationa l Title s (“ DOT” ). The C om m issione r argue d

be fore the distric t

c o urt tha t the re wa s not a

n a ppa re n t c onflic t. The distric t c ourt disa gre e d, but de c line d to a ward attorne y ’ s fe e s a fte r finding tha

t the C om m issione r’ s position wa s substa ntia lly justifie d. In Rounds v . C

ommissione r of Soc ial Se c urity , No. 13-5505 (9th C ir. August 4, 2015), we re c e ntly

de te rm ine d tha

t a n R FC for “ 1 to 2 ste

p ta sks” is in a

p pa re nt c onflic t with Re a soning Le ve l 2. Ne ve rthe le s s, the ALJ’ s de c ision wa s substa ntia lly justifie d, be c a

use we ha d not de te rm ine d whe the r an R FC for “ 1 to 2 ste p ta s ks” is in a

p pa re nt c onflic t with Re a soning Le ve l 2 a t the tim e the ALJ m a de its de c i sion. If the re we re not a n a ppa re nt c onflic t, the ALJ wa s e n title d to re ly on the t e stim ony

of the Voc ationa l Expe rt (“ VE” ) re ga rding the jobs Alle n-Howa rd c ould pe rform in the nationa l e c onom y . Se e Massac h i v . Astrue , 486 F.3d 1149, 31152–53 (9th C ir. 2007)
. T he distric t c ourts of this c irc uit ha ve split on this que stion, a

nd the re wa s no c ontrolling a uthority to guidethe ALJ. S e e Me i ssl v
. Barnhart , 403 F. Supp. 2d 981 (C .D. C a l. 2005); Sk e e ns v . Astrue , 903 F. Supp. 2d 1200 (W .D. W a sh. 2012). It wa s not c le ar at the tim e the ALJ m a de its de c ision that Alle n -Howa

rd’ s R FC , for “ 1 to 2 ste

p ta sks,” wa s inc onsiste nt with Re a soning Le ve l 2. The re fore , the re wa s a re a sona ble ba sis in la

w a nd fa c t to support the ALJ’ s de c ision not to re c ogniz e an a ppa re nt c o nflic t be t

we e n the VE’ s te s tim ony re ga rding wha

t jobs a c la im ant with Allen-Howa rd’ s R FC c ould pe rform

and the DOT. The C om

m issione r’ s litiga

tion position in the distric t c ourt wa s a lso substa ntia lly justifie d. As note d, the re wa s no c ontrolling a uthority on the que stion ra ise d in Alle n-Howa

rd’ s a p p e a l at the tim e the C om m issione r file d

its brie fing. This is not a

c a se like G utie rre

z , whe re the gove rnm e nt’ s position on a n ope n que stion wa s c ontra

ry t o the c le ar and une quivoc a l la ngua ge of a

re g ulation. Se e Gutie r re z , 274 F.3d a

t 1262. Allen-Howa

rd’ s c a se involve d

“ c onte ste d inte rpre tations of a

n am biguous le g a l rule .” Id. The re fore , the C om m issione r’ s litiga tion position wa s substa

n tia lly justifie d. AFFIRM E D .

4