N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANGELA C . AGUILAR ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. NAVY EXC HANGE SER VIC E C OM M AND; DIR

EC TOR , OFFIC E OF W ORKER S’ C O M PENSATION PR OGR AM S, R e sponde nts. No. 19-70397 B RB No. 18-0327
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B e ne fits R e vie w B oa

rd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 4, 2020 ** Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : FAR

R IS, M c KEOW

N, a nd B ADE, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Ange la

Aguila r se e ks re vie w of the B e ne fits R e vie w B oa rd’ s orde r de ny ing re c onside ra t i on of a n Adm inistra

tive La w Judge ’ s attorne y ’ s fe e s



# FIL ED FEB 18 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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).award. W e re vie w the A L J’ s se le c tion of a ge ogra phic are a a s the “ re le va

nt
c om m unity ” in c a lc u lating a

ttorne y ’ s fe e s for a

buse of disc re tion, a

nd we do not
ove rturn tha

t se le c tion if it is “ a de quate ly justifie d a

nd supporte d by

substa ntia l
e vide nc e .” Shirrod v . Dire c tor, OW C P , 809 F.3d 1082, 1087, 1088 n.5 (9th C ir. 2015) (c iting C

hriste n se n v . Ste v e doring Se rv s. of Am. , 557 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th C ir. 2009)). W e de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. An attorne y ’ s hourly

ra te is c a lc ulate d ba s e d on pre va iling m arke t rate s in the re le va nt c om m unity
. Id. a t 1086 (quoting C h r iste n se n , 557 F.3d a

t 1053). In Shirrod , we e xplic itly

de c line d to im

pose a bright line

rule de fining the re le va

nt
c om m unity in LongshoreAc t

c a se s, le aving it inste a d to the ALJ a n d B oa rd to de te rm i ne the re le v ant c om m unity on a n individualiz e d ba sis. 809 F.3d a t 1088 n.5. That de c ision sha ll sta nd “ a s long a s [it] is a de quate ly justifie d a nd supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e .” Id. He re , the he aring took pla c e in Honolulu a t Aguila r’ s re que st. Aguila

r live d in Ha wa i’ i, worke d the re , wa s injure d on the job the re , an d re c e ive d m e dic a l tre a tm e n t the re . He r c ounse l’ s we bsite indic a te s tha t he m a inta ins a

n offic e in

2Honolulu. It wa s not e rror to c o nside r Hawa i’ i to be the re le va nt c om m unity whe n
c a lc ulat ing a

ttorne y ’ s fe e s. 1 Eve n if the ALJ e rre d by

ra ising he r c onc e rns re g arding the re le v an t
c om m unity for the c a l c ulation of a

ttorne y ’ s fe e s without notic e , we m a y ove rturn that de c ision “ only

if it re a sona

bly c an be c onc l ude d tha

t a b se nt suc h e rror the re would ha ve be e n a c ontra ry re sult.” Haw . Ste v e dore s , Inc
. v . Ogaw a , 608 F.3d 642, 648 (9th C i r. 2010). It is unre a sona ble to c onc lude tha

t with notic e and the opportunity

to re spond, theultim a te fe e award would ha ve be e n diffe re nt. The ALJ did not err by de ny i ng Aguila r’ s re que s t for c osts. NEXC OM obje c te d to Aguila

r’ s la c k of doc um e ntation re ga rding c osts. Aguila

r ha d one y e ar
and e ight m onths to re s pond to tha t obje c tion, a

nd she did not. The re is no
re quire m e nt tha

t a n ALJ give notic e tha

t som e doc um e ntation of re que ste d c osts is
ne c e ssa ry . The award wa s re a sona ble and supporte d

by substa ntia l e vide nc e . DE NIE D.

1 Aguila r fa ils to pe rsua de the c ourt tha t othe r c o m

pe te nt c ounse l wa s una va ila ble for this c a se in Ha

wa i’ i. Se e Gate

s v . De u k me jian , 987 F.2d 1392, 1405 (9th C ir. 1992). 3