Court Opinion

ID: 9480181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:40:47.665481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:32.189881
License: Public Domain

*405BREYER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In 1978 the government began to pay the claimant social security disability benefits. In 1980 it terminated the benefits on the ground that the evidence showed she was not disabled. She sought judicial review, claiming that the termination was unlawful in the absence of a “medical improvement.” See Miranda v. Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare, 514 F.2d 996, 998 (1st Cir.1975). While her claim was pending, Congress passed a statute requiring the government to apply a “medical improvement” standard in cases such as hers. See Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984, Pub.L. 98-460, § 2, 98 Stat. 1794 (1984), 1794-97, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 423(f). Her case was remanded pursuant to that statute. See Pub.L. 98-460, § 2(d)(2)(C), 98 Stat. 1794,1797 (1984). The government, applying the “medical improvement” standard, decided she should continue to receive benefits — the very result she sought. She now seeks reimbursement for her legal expenses. She is entitled to reimbursement if she was a “prevailing party,” and the government's legal position was not “substantially justified.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
My basic disagreement with the court concerns the statutory words “prevailing party.” The majority believes this is a case in which one cannot say the plaintiff “prevailed,” but rather, at most, one might say she “would have prevailed” had she continued to press her legal action. That is to say, it may be a case in which this court would have remanded to the Social Security Administration for redetermination had the court decided the matter, but this court, in fact, did not decide the matter. It did not do so because an intervening outside act— indeed, an act of Congress itself — produced a remand (and eventual victory), the very result for which the claimant hoped.
In my view, the following circumstances make it proper, as a matter of ordinary English usage, as well as a matter of law, to say that the claimant “prevailed” in her legal action. First, she did get the relief she wanted. Second, her legal action was a necessary condition for her obtaining it.
That is to say, had she not filed her action when she did, the Social Security Administration’s termination would have become final; and Congress’s statute would not have resurrected her case. See Pub.L. 98-460, § 2(d)(2)(C), 98 Stat. 1794, 1797 (1984); Hendricks v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 1255, 1258 (7th Cir.1988); Truax v. Bowen, 842 F.2d 995, 997 (8th Cir.1988) (per curiam). Third, the outside event — the Congressional action — that brought her relief was not an unrelated, extra-judicial event. Rather, Congress acted, in part, because this claimant, and other claimants similarly situated, had filed lawsuits.
The “causal” role of such lawsuits (taken together) is suggested by expressed concern in Congress about the failure of the Social Security Administration to “follow U.S. Courts of appeals decisions with which it disagrees, either nationwide or within the circuit of the ruling.” H.R.Rep. No. 618, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 23, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 3038, 3060. The particular decisions that the Social Security Administration failed to follow included cases such as Miranda — cases that had enunciated a form of “medical improvement” standard. Indeed, the House Report stated:
The committee is most concerned about the impact of this policy on beneficiaries and claimants, and on their relationship to the social security program. If a circuit court rules on a given issue such as medical improvement, it is a foregone conclusion that subsequent appeals to that court on that issue will be successful. By refusing to apply the circuit court ruling, SSA forces beneficiaries and applicants to relitigate the same issue over and over again in the circuit....
The committee can find no reason grounded in sensible public policy to force beneficiaries to sue in order to obtain what has been declared by the Federal court as justice in a particular area. Such a policy creates a wholly undesirable distinction between those beneficiaries with the resources and fortitude to pursue their claims, and those who accept the government’s original denial *406in good faith or because they lack the means to appeal their case.
Id. at 3061-62 (emphasis added). See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 1039, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 37-38, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 3080, 3095-96 (although the conference version of the Benefits Reform Act contains no specific provision dealing with “non-acquiescence,” the conference committee nonetheless expressed concern that the Social Security Administration’s policy “forces beneficiaries to relitigate the same issue over and over again in the circuit, at substantial expense to both beneficiaries and the federal government.”)
Had all claimants in the same position as the one before us brought their challenges to disability benefit termination policies in one large, class action suit, the relation between suit, Congressional action, and relief, would seem close enough to bring their case within the rule enunciated by this circuit in Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 279 (1st Cir.1978), namely that “when plaintiffs lawsuit acts as a ‘catalyst’ in prompting defendants to take action to meet plaintiff’s claims, attorney’s fees are justified despite the lack of judicial involvement in the result.” Id. (citations omitted); see Truax, 842 F.2d at 997 (applying a “catalyst” test under EAJA); cf. Harrington v. DeVito, 656 F.2d 264, 266 (7th Cir.1981) (applying a catalyst test under 42 U.S.C. § 1988), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 993, 102 S.Ct. 1621, 71 L.Ed.2d 854 (1982).
Of course, all identical claimants did not bring one large lawsuit. Rather, many of them filed individual lawsuits. As a result of their separate filings, one cannot say that any individual case acted as a “catalyst.” One cannot say that any individual legal filing led Congress to act. One cannot say that any individual case “caused” the ultimately favorable result. Yet, I do not think that fact makes a difference where the individual cases, combined with a host of other similar cases, did have a catalytic effect. One can say of a single soldier that he “prevailed in his military action” when he, along with five hundred other soldiers in the same unit, took the enemy hill. Similarly, I believe one can say that this claimant “prevailed in her legal action” when she, along with many other similar claimants, bringing virtually identical judicial actions, helped convince Congress to pass the statute. See H.R.Rep. No. 618, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 11, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 3038, 3048 (“[T]he combination of an apparently more restrictive policy and reviews of large numbers of beneficiaries have resulted in widespread complaints about [the Social Security Administration’s] procedures. These policies have come under severe criticism in the Federal courts[;]” both the Ninth Circuit and other circuit courts have declared “[s]imilar ‘medical improvement’ standards_ [Sjection 101 of the bill establishes a clear ‘medical improvement’ standard.”)
To hold this does not threaten any significant expansion of the notion of “catalyst,” for the circumstance (no single lawsuit, but a group of virtually identical lawsuits, brings relief) would seem relatively rare. To hold this would seem consistent with the basic Congressional intent underlying the EAJA, namely to avoid discouraging “individuals ... from seeking review of ... unreasonable governmental action because of the expense involved in securing the vindication of their rights in civil actions.” Equal Access to Justice Act, Pub.L. No. 96-481, tit. 2, § 202(a), 94 Stat. 2321, 2325 (1980). To hold the contrary risks creating the anomaly mentioned above, namely that recovery of legal costs turns on whether claimants were, or were not, able to consolidate their separate claims into a single suit.
Were a majority of this panel to agree that the claimant is a “prevailing party,” we should then remand this case for reconsideration of whether or not the government’s legal position — both when it terminated the claimant’s benefits and when it chose to contest her appeal of the termination, see 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(D) (“ ‘position of the United States’ means, in addition to the position taken by the United States in the civil action, the action or failure to act by the agency upon which the civil action is based”), — was “substantially *407justified.” There is some reason to think that it was not. The Administration reversed itself and provided benefits while applying the “medical improvements” standard contained in the new statute. That statute compromises (a) the need for accuracy in making certain that disability benefit recipients are truly disabled, and (b) the need to avoid continuous relitigation of matters once decided. It does so by permitting the Social Security Administration to terminate previously granted disability benefits if (a) there is medical improvement and the claimant can now work, or (b) there is significant evidence showing that the claimant was not disabled in the first place. To be more specific, the statute permits termination if (a) the claimant has medically improved and can now work, or (b) advances in medical or vocational therapy will permit the claimant to work, or (c) new or improved diagnostic techniques show that the claimant was not really disabled, or (d) new or old evidence shows that a “prior determination was in error.” See 42 U.S.C. § 423(f)(l)-(4). It is difficult to see how the Administration could have concluded that this standard requires it to pay benefits, but could also reasonably have concluded that preexisting First Circuit law did not require it to pay benefits. That is because preexisting First Circuit law, as enunciated in Miranda, 514 F.2d at 998, seemed to apply at least as strict a standard as the new statute (indeed, perhaps in respect to the need for new evidence, a stricter standard). Miranda says,
[OJnce having found a disability, the Secretary may not terminate the benefits without substantial evidence to justify so doing. This will normally consist of current evidence showing that a claimant has improved to the point of being able to engage in substantial gainful activity; but it might also consist of evidence that claimant’s condition is not as serious as was first supposed.*
Id. (emphasis added).
Of course, it is conceivable that, had Congress not acted, this court would have modified its Miranda standard in light of the Administration’s adoption of regulations that said that “eligibility for cash benefits and for a period of disability will end” when “the evidence in [the claimant’s] file shows that [he is] able to do substantial gainful activity.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1594, 416.994 (1981). See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2781-82, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984) (when administrative agency has adopted a regulation implementing a statute, courts should ask only whether the regulation “is based on a permissible construction of the statute”). But, major modification seems unlikely since almost every other circuit had held that the Social Security Administration could not, consistent with its basic statute, interpret this regulation to permit termination in the absence of any evidence showing that the claimant’s medical condition had improved (or that the original disability determination had been erroneous). See, e.g., Rush v. Secretary of HHS, 738 F.2d 909, 915-16 (8th Cir.1984); DeLeon v. Secretary of HHS, 734 F.2d 930, 936-37 (2d Cir.1984); Turner v. Heckler, 592 F.Supp. 599, 606 (N.D.Ind.1984); Holden v. Heckler, 584 F.Supp. 463, 474 (N.D.Ohio 1984); Doe v. Heckler, 576 F.Supp. 463, 470-72 (D.Md.1983); Graham v. Heckler, 573 F.Supp. 1573, 1578-80 (N.D.W.Va.1983), appeal dismissed, 742 F.2d 1448 (4th Cir.1984); Trujillo v. Heckler, 569 F.Supp. 631, 634 (D.Colo.1983); see also Vaughn v. Heckler, 727 F.2d 1040, 1043 (11th Cir.1984) (applying medical improvement standard on review of termination decision made after “current evidence” regulations went into effect); Daring v. Heckler, 727 F.2d 64, 68-69 (3d Cir.1984) (same); Person v. Secretary of HHS, 578 F.Supp. 190, 192 (E.D.Mich.1984) (same). But see Hill v. Heckler, 592 F.Supp. 1198, 1208-13 (W.D.Okla.1984) (disability beneficiaries not enti-*408tied to preliminary injunction against use of “current evidence” standard because little likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their claim that use of the standard was unlawful).
Ultimately, the matter may come down to determining how obviously wrong the Administration was in terminating the claimant’s benefits. What had changed since the initial award? Was there any medical improvement? Had diagnostic or therapeutic techniques changed? Was there new evidence? To what extent did review of the initial decision to grant suggest that the initial decision was clearly wrong? These are matters in respect to which we should not second guess the district court. See Pierce v. Underwood, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 2546-49 (1988) (district court’s determination of whether government’s position was “substantially justified” reviewed only for abuse of discretion). Here, however, the magistrate’s reason for finding the government’s legal position “without substantial justification” consisted of the following:
Under the old standard, the Secretary had to find the plaintiff’s disability had ceased in order for disability benefits to be terminated. However, under the new standard, all the Secretary had to demonstrate was that there was some medical improvement. The Secretary could find no medical improvement thereby contradicting its previous decision.
Magistrate’s Memorandum and Order, Guglietti v. Bowen, No. 82-0369T (October 14, 1988). These three sentences do not seem directly related to what I believe to be the relevant questions.
I conclude that we should find that the claimant is a “prevailing party,” but we should also remand for reconsideration of the issue of “substantial justification.”

 We reject the broad rule said by the district court to be established in Pedroza v. Secretary, 382 F.Supp. 916 (D.P.R.1974), that the Secretary cannot take into account medical evidence considered earlier when the disability was first established. It would he wrong for the Secretary to terminate an earlier finding of disability on no basis other than his reappraisal of the earlier evidence. However, many impairments are difficult to diagnose; a proper diagnosis may require reference to the cumulative medical history.