N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JAM ES Y. HER

R ON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C AR OLYN W . C OLVIN, C om m issione r of Soc ia l Se c urity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-16675 D.C . No. 1:07-c v-00623-HG-B M K
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii H e le n W . Gillm or, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 7, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : IKUTA, N.R . SM ITH, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . Soc ia l Se c urity

be ne fits c la im ant, Ja

m e s Y. He rron, a

ppe a ls the distric t
c ourt’ s de nia l of his a

pplic ation for a

ttorne y ’ s fe e s unde r the Equa l Ac c e ss to Justic e Ac t (EAJA), 28 U.S.C . § 2412(a)(1). W e re ve rse and re m and. 

# FIL ED OCT 20 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of attorne y ’ s fe e s unde r the EAJA for

a buse o f disc re tion. Se e Pie rc e v . Unde rw ood, 487 U.S. 552, 559 (1988); C orbin
v . Apfe l , 149 F.3d 1051, 1052 (9th C ir. 1998). The distric t c ourt a buse s its disc re tion whe n

its “ de c ision is ba se d on a n e rrone ous c onc lusion of la w or whe n the re c ord c onta ins no e vide nc e on whic h it ra tiona l ly c ould ha ve ba s e d tha

t de c ision.” K

ali v
. Bow e n , 854 F.2d 329, 331 (9th C ir. 1988) (inte rna l quota tion
m arks a nd a lte ration omi tte d). Attorne y ’ s fe e s “ sha ll” be grante d unde r the EAJA to a pre va iling plaintiff

“ unle ss” the gove rnm e nt

m e e ts its burden to de m onstra t e tha t both (a) its litiga

tion position a nd (b) the a ge nc y de c ision on re vie wwe re “ substa ntia lly justifie d .” 28 U.S.C . § 2412(d)(1)(A); Thangaraja v . Gonzale s , 428 F.3d 870, 874 (9th C ir. 2005). The re is no dispute tha t He rron pre v a i le d on them e rits of the c a se . The re fore , we de te rm ine whe the r the gove rnm e nt m e t its burde n with re spe c t to
e a c h proc e dura l issueon whic h the c la im ant pre va ile d, rathe r tha n foc u sing on the post-re m and proc e e d ings c onc e rning theultim ate issue of disa bility
. Se e Flore

s v . Shalala , 49 F.3d 562, 566 (9th C ir. 1995). Pre viously , in them e rits de c ision, were ve rse d the ALJ’ s de nia l of be ne fits. W e c onc l ude d tha

t substa ntia l e vide nc e did not support the ALJ’ s de c i sion with
re ga rd to (1) c re dibility , (2) m e dic a l e vide nc e supporting the ALJ’ s re sidua l
2func tiona l c a pa c ity (RFC ), and (3) pa st re le va nt work. He rron v . Astrue , 407 F. App’ x 139, 140-41 (9th C i r. 2010). Re vie wing e a c h issue to de te rm ine whe the r the C om m issione r m e t its burde n, we find the C o m m issione r did not. 1. The ALJ fa i le d to a rtic ulate his re a soning for his c re dibility de c ision. Whe re , a s he re , the ALJ fa ile d to “ offe r c l e ar an d c onvinc i ng re a sons, supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , for disc ounting”He rron’ s te stim ony , the n the a ge nc y de c ision wa s not substa

ntia lly justifie d. Se e Me ie r v . C olv in , 727 F.3d 867, 872 (9th C ir. 2013). Given this de te rm ination, wene e d not a ddre ss whe the r the C om m issione r’ s litiga

tion position wa s substa

ntia lly justifie d. Id
. 2. The ALJ e rrone o usly a sse sse d the m e dic a l e vide nc e in the re c ord. The ALJ
e rre d in disre ga

rding som e m e dic a l e vide nc e on the sole ba sis tha t it wa s outsideof the d isa bility pe riod. Se e Smith v . Bow e n , 849 F.2d 1222, 1225 (9th C ir. 1988). The ALJ e rre d in giving gre at we ight to the sta te a ge nc y ’ s m e dic a l c onsulta tion
re port without ta

king into ac c ount thefa c tors ide ntifie d in 20 C
. F.R
. § 404.1527(e )(2)(ii), inc l uding thec onsulta nt’ s spe c ia lty

and e xpe rtise . Give n the s e fa ilure s to c om

p ly with thela

w a nd re gula tions, theALJ’ s de c ision la c ke d

3substa

ntia l justific ation. 1 Se e Gutie r re z v . Barnhart , 274 F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (9th C ir. 2001). Given this de te rm ination, wene e d not a ddre ss whe the r the C om m issione r’ s litiga

tion position wa s substa

ntia lly justifie d. Me ie r , 727 F.3d a t 872. 3. The ALJ’ s c um

ulative le ga l e rrors re ga

rding He rron’ s c re dibility and
m e dic a l e vide nc e pre c lude d the ALJ from prope rly a sse ssing He rron’ s lim ita tions during theinsure d pe riod a nd whe the r he c ould pe rform his pa st work. R e ly ing on
an ina ppropria te R FC a sse ssm e nt, the ALJ wa s una ble to a c c urate ly

pre s e nt a hy pothe t ic a l to thevoc ationa l e xpe rt in orde r to de te rm ine whe the r He rron c ould pe rform his pa st work a s se t forth in SSR 82-61. Give n this de te rm inat ion, we
ne e d not a ddre ss whe the r the C om m issione r’ s litiga

tion position wa s substa

ntia lly justifie d. Me ie r , 727 F.3d a t 872. On the

ba sis of the se e rrors, we hold tha t the gove rnm e nt’ s position “ at [this] sta ge of the proc e e dings” wa s not substa ntia lly justifie d. Id
. Thus, we re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a ttorne y s fe e s unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 2412(d)(1)(A). RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

1 B e c a use the ALJ c om

m itte d le ga l e rror in a sse ssing He rron’ s R FC , we ne e d not de c i de whe the r the C om m issione r wa s justifie d in de fe nding theALJ’ s de c ision re ga

rding theVA disa

b ility rat ing. 4