Court Opinion

ID: 9502484
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 18:51:42.775876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:00.796222
License: Public Domain

MOORMAN, Judge,
concurring:
I concur with the reasoning and the result of the majority opinion. I write separately to note an alternative basis for denying the EAJA application. Although the Court did not reach the question of whether the Secretary’s position was substantially justified because the appellant was not a prevailing party, I agree with Judge Lance’s opinion that the Secretary’s position was substantially justified, but I stress that I believe that, notwithstanding the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Smith v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1344 (Fed.Cir.2006), the Secretary’s position was substantially justified. See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 566 n. 2, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988) (“[A] position can be justified even though it is not correct, and we believe it can be substantially (i.e., for the most part) justified if a reasonable person could think it correct, that is, if it has a reasonable basis in law and fact.”).