IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JASON S. ANDERSEN, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

CAROLYN L. COL VIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

P ANNER, District Judge: 

Case No. 3:15-cv-0664-PA 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Jason Andersen prevailed on his claim for Social Security disability benefits. 

Opinion & Order, ECF No. 18. Plaintiff now petitions for attorney's fees under the Equal Access 

to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Defendant opposes the petition, and in the alternative 

contends that the number of hours requested should be reduced to reflect unsuccessful arguments 

made by Plaintiffs counsel. I grant the petition. 

BACKGROUND 

I concluded that the ALJ erred in rejecting Plaintiffs testimony on the extent and severity 

of his multiple sclerosis (MS). I also concluded that the ALJ did not err in rejecting the medical 

opinions of Drs. Teresa Everson and Joshua Russell, or in finding that Plaintiffs depression and 

1 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00664-PA Document 24 Filed 12/14/16 Page 1 of 3
anxiety were not severe impairments. This court issued a judgment reversing and remanding this 

case for an award of benefits. 

In his attorney's fee petition, Plaintiff seeks $7,839.54, based on a total of 41.20 hours of 

work at the hourly rate of $190.28. 

LEGAL STANDARDS 

The EAJA allows the prevailing party in a civil action against the United States to recover 

attorney's fees ifthe government's position, either during the litigation or the government's 

conduct giving rise to the litigation, was not "substantially justified." United States v. 2659 

Roundhill Drive, 283 F.3d 1146, 1151 (9th Cir. 2002). "Substantial justification" "means that the 

government's position must have a 'reasonable basis both in law and in fact,' i.e., the government 

need not be 'justified to a high degree,' but rather 'justified in substance or in the main' --that is, 

justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person." Id (citations omitted). "The 

government bears the burden of showing that its position was substantially justified throughout the 

... proceedings." Id at 1151 n.7 (citing United States v. 22249 Dolorosa St., 190 F.3d 977, 982 

(9th Cir. 1999)). This court has discretion to award attorney's fees under EAJA. Corbin v. Apfel, 

149 F.3d 1051, 1052 (9th Cir. 1998). 

DISCUSSION 

I. The Government's Position Was Not Substantially Justified 

In concluding that the ALJ erred in rejecting Plaintiffs testimony, I stated that because 

Plaintiff "presented objective medical evidence of his MS, he created a reasonable inference to 

support his allegations of fatigue and other symptoms." Opinon & Order 12. The ALJ did not give 

clear and convincing reasons for rejected Plaintiffs testimony. Because the ALJ did not apply the 

proper legal standard in evaluating Plaintiffs testimony, I conclude that the government's position 

was not substantially justified. See Williams v. Colvin, No. C -11-02962 (EDL), 2013 WL 

4758190, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2013) (ALJ's failure "to adequately support its credibility 

findings is reason to award EAJA fees to a prevailing party"). 

2 - ORDER 

Case 3:15-cv-00664-PA Document 24 Filed 12/14/16 Page 2 of 3
II. The Amount of Attorney's Fees 

The government argues that even if Plaintiff is entitled to fees under the EAJA, the court 

should reduce amount of fees because Plaintiff did not prevail on two of the three primary 

arguments he raised. I conclude, however, that when a plaintiff achieves a reversal and remand for 

award of benefits, the result is successful even if the plaintiff did not prevail on all of his 

arguments. See Eastman v. Astrue, No. 3:11-cv-00701-PK., 2013 WL 1130784, at *5 (D. Or. Jan. 

25, 2013) (plaintiff achieved a "successful result" by obtaining "a reversal and remand based on 

two of his [five] legal theories"), adopted, 2013 WL 1130762 (D. Or. Mar. 15, 2013); Williams v. 

Astrue, No. 1:10-cv-194-CL, 2012 WL 3527224, at *4 (D. Or. 2012) (accord), adopted, 2012 WL 

3527207 (D. Or. Aug. 15, 2012). 

I have examined the hours requested by Plaintiff and find them to be reasonable. 

Defendant does not object to the statutory hourly rate. 

CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff's Petition for Fees Per Equal Access to Justice Act, ECF No. 20, is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff is awarded $7,839.54 in attorney's fees ,subject to offset for any debts that may be owed 

by Plaintiff to the federal government. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

3 - ORDER 

DATED this _Lj[_ day of December, 2016. 

OWEN M. PANNER 

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:15-cv-00664-PA Document 24 Filed 12/14/16 Page 3 of 3