Opinion ID: 553863
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Finding of Substantial Justification

Text: 33 Finally, we must determine whether the Commission acted outside the confines of its jurisdiction in this case by awarding fees and expenses against the Secretary without determining whether the Secretary was substantially justified in issuing and prosecuting the citations against Phoenix. The EAJA directs an agency conducting an adversary adjudication to award attorney's fees and other expenses to a non-federal prevailing party unless the adjudicative officer ... finds that the position of the agency was substantially justified. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 504(a)(1). 34 Congress adopted the substantial justification standard to balance[ ] the constitutional obligation of the executive branch to see that the laws are faithfully executed against the public interest in encouraging parties to vindicate their rights. H.R.Rep. No. 1418, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 10, reprinted in 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News (96 Stat.) 4984, 4989. While facilitating review of unreasonable governmental action, the conditional fee-shifting approach operates as a  'safety valve' ... to insure that the Government is not deterred from advancing in good faith the novel but credible extensions and interpretations of the law that often underlie vigorous enforcement efforts. Id. at 11, reprinted in 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 4990. 35 The government clearly bears the burden of demonstrating that fees should not be awarded in a given case. S & H Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. OSHRC, 672 F.2d 426, 430 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982). The government's burden of showing substantial justification for a case is not, however, insurmountable. Id. The standard ... should not be read to raise a presumption that the Government position was not substantially justified, simply because it lost the case. H.R.Rep. No. 1418, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. at 10, 18; 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 4989, 4997. Rather, the government must show that its case had a reasonable basis both in law and fact. S & H Riggers, 672 F.2d at 430. 36 An award of fees and expenses under the EAJA must include the predicate finding that the government's position was not substantially justified. Jean v. Nelson, 863 F.2d 759 (11th Cir.1988), aff'd, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 2316, 110 L.Ed.2d 134 (1990). Here the OSHRC's decision granting Phoenix's application makes no finding that the agency action was not substantially justified. Instead the OSHRC ALJ merely found Phoenix to be the prevailing party in the proceeding leading up to this application. This determination is not sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements that the ALJ determine whether the agency action was substantially justified. 37 Since the question of substantial justification frequently turns on a question of fact, the Commission is better suited to decide this matter than we are. For this reason, we remand to the Commission for a finding on substantial justification. 3