Opinion ID: 430745
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: substantial justification for the secretary's position

Text: 15 The EAJA provides for awards of fees and expenses to parties prevailing against the United States unless the Government's position was substantially justified or special circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d)(1)(A) (Supp. IV 1980). An adverse decision on the merits does not foreclose a finding of substantial justification. Foster v. Tourtellotte, 704 F.2d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir.1983). The essential issue is the reasonableness of the government's position. Id. 16 The position evaluated is not the litigation position only, but the totality of the circumstances prelitigation and during trial. Rawlings, at 1196. The justification for the Secretary's position here has changed, perhaps significantly, during the course of this dispute. 17 This fee award is for services provided in the course of two proceedings before the district court. It found that the Secretary's position was without substantial justification because there was no evidence in the record supporting [the ALJ's] finding of residual capacity. (Emphasis in original). 18 With respect to the first district court proceeding, the finding of no substantial justification was not an abuse of discretion. As the dissent points out, all objective medical tests supported the ALJ's decision. However, the same reports of the examining physicians unanimously acknowledge the existence of pain, vertigo, dizziness, and headaches. E/R at 24. The ALJ was not reversed for improper balancing, but because there was no evidence contradicting the medical experts' unanimous finding of disability. 19 After the case was remanded to the Secretary for rehearing, the ALJ sought additional evidence concerning Wolverton's residual capacity to work. The judge asked that Wolverton submit to further medical and psychological examinations, at government expense. See 20 C.F.R. Secs. 404.1517-.1518. He refused. The lack of evidence of residual capacity at the second administrative hearing may be, at least partially, Wolverton's responsibility. 20 We cannot determine from the record before us whether the Secretary's position was substantially justified at the time of the second district court proceeding. To establish substantial justification, the Government must show its case had a reasonable basis both in law and in fact. Hoang Ha v. Schweiker, 707 F.2d 1104, 1106 (9th Cir.1983) (citations omitted). 21 The Secretary's position throughout the long course of this dispute must be considered. To decide whether Wolverton's refusal to submit to the additional examinations transformed the government's position into a reasonable one, the court should consider all surrounding circumstances. 22 It was the ALJ's dissatisfaction with the record, not the government's, that prompted the request for further examinations. What were the purposes and importance of the examinations? Would they have duplicated information already available, or produced additional information material to the residual capacity issue? Was the information sought reasonably available from other sources? 23 We reverse the award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses and remand. Fees, costs, and expenses attributable to the first district court proceeding should be awarded. Some costs attributable to administrative proceedings may have been awarded inadvertently. The parties agree that those should be excluded. The court should award fees for the second district court proceeding only if it finds that, in light of Wolverton's refusal to submit to further examinations, the Secretary's position still was not substantially justified. 24 Wolverton's petition for attorneys' fees and costs on appeal is denied. The appeal presented questions of first impression in this circuit. The Secretary's position here was substantially justified. 25 The judgment is reversed in part and remanded. The parties will bear their own costs on this appeal. 26