Court Opinion

ID: 9483754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:30:37.338664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:49.245379
License: Public Domain

BEAM, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The court’s opinion, in my view, unnecessarily adds to the government's burden in dealing with social security claims in this circuit. Accordingly, I dissent.
I. BACKGROUND
On behalf of the Social Security Administration, two doctors examined Koss: Dr. Morrow and Dr. Leydig. Dr. Morrow determined that Koss suffered from superficial venous varicosities, a condition which would not prevent gainful employment. Dr. Leydig reported that he could not make a diagnosis of objective disability, but he noted the possibility of a functional over*1230lay. Dr. Leydig also reported that Koss did not rely on her cane when she walked, a finding which the AU interpreted as a suggestion of malingering. Based on this medical evidence, the AU concluded that Koss’s subjective complaints were not supported by the medical evidence, and that she was not disabled under the Social Security Act. The AU therefore denied Koss’s application for benefits.
After exhausting her administrative remedies, Koss appealed the AU’s decision to the district court contending that it was not based on substantial evidence. Counsel was appointed to represent Koss before the district court. On May 31, 1989, Koss filed a motion for summary judgment. In response to this motion, the Secretary requested a remand to permit further development of the record. The district court granted the Secretary’s motion. On the basis of additional evidence submitted after remand, the AU found that Koss suffered from a psychological impairment, and had been disabled since June 14, 1986. The Secretary therefore awarded benefits.
Koss then filed this action in the district court and requested an award of $8,343.15 in attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The district court denied her request on the grounds that the United States had acted reasonably, and that the government’s actions had been substantially justified. Koss appeals this denial of attorney’s fees.
II. DISCUSSION
Koss is clearly a prevailing party in this action. A disability benefits claimant is a prevailing party if the claimant ultimately obtains the benefits sought on appeal to the district court. Swedberg v. Bowen, 804 F.2d 432, 434 (8th Cir.1986). Under the EAJA she is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees unless the government’s actions were substantially justified. The Supreme Court has interpreted substantially justified to mean:
not justified to a high degree, but rather justified in substance or in the main— that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person. That is no different from the reasonable basis both in law and fact formulation____
Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 2550, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988) (citations omitted). Thus, substantial justification under the EAJA is essentially a reasonableness standard. See Welter v. Sullivan, 941 F.2d 674, 676 (8th Cir.1991) (when the Secretary’s position is reasonable in denying the claimant’s claim for benefits, an award of attorney’s fees is not appropriate under EAJA.)
The district court found the Secretary’s actions to be substantially justified, and therefore denied Koss’s request for attorney’s fees. Koss v. Sullivan, No. 87-1913C(6), Memorandum and Order, at 3 (E.D.Mo. November 27, 1991). A denial of EAJA fees is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Pierce, 487 U.S. at 562-63, 108 S.Ct. at 2548-49; Truax v. Bowen, 842 F.2d 995, 997 (8th Cir.1988). While Koss does not specifically assert that the district court abused its discretion, she does suggest that the court created a new standard which “requires that an appellant unequivocally demonstrate the presence of a disability before EAJA fees may be granted.” Appellant’s Brief at 11. I read this assertion as an abuse of discretion challenge to the decision of the district court.
Koss relies on language in the district court’s opinion to support her contention that the district court created a new standard for the award of attorney’s fees. The district court stated:
Moreover, at the time of the filing of the government's motion to remand, the record in the case did not unequivocally demonstrate the presence of a disability. Had it done so, the Court would have reversed the AU’s determination outright. On remand the augmented medical record might have supported the AU’s initial decision to deny benefits. Therefore the government’s position was not unreasonable.
Koss v. Sullivan, No. 87-1913C(6), at 3. I do not agree with Koss’s contention that this language creates a new standard for *1231the award of attorney’s fees under EAJA. Instead, I interpret it to mean that the district court found the Secretary’s conduct to be reasonable in light of the evidence in the record.
Koss had the initial burden of establishing the existence of a disability, but the Secretary also has a duty to “develop the record fully and fairly,” and that burden extends to exploring relevant avenues of medical evidence. Boyd v. Sullivan, 960 F.2d 733, 736 (8th Cir.1992); Warner v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 428, 431 (8th Cir.1983). Had Koss raised the issue of a possible psychological impairment, the AU would have been unreasonable in deciding the case without fully exploring that possibility. See Boyd, 960 F.2d at 736. However, Koss did not raise that issue, or proceed on that basis. The only evidence in the record of a possible psychological disorder was a reference made by a non-specialist.
While I recognize that persons proceeding pro se should be accorded leniency, and that the AU has an affirmative duty to ensure that the record is complete, I think that a petitioner has some responsibility to make her own case. In the absence of any argument that Koss suffered from a psychological disability, I cannot find that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to require the AU to investigate, sua sponte, the possibility of such a disorder. To hold otherwise would place a tremendous, and I think unwarranted, burden on the AU.1
Once Koss raised the issue of whether the AU should have developed the record with regard to a psychological impairment, the Secretary did not persist in defending the AU’s decision. Instead the Secretary requested a remand. Such conduct is entirely reasonable. Therefore the district court was within its discretion in denying attorney’s fees under EAJA.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, I dissent.

. I disagree with the court’s conclusion that the government's motion to remand establishes a lack of "substantial justification.” The "psychological aspect of Koss’s disability” referred to by the court is supported only by a reference to a "functional overlay” by Dr. Leydig an examining physician retained by the government. The government, in its response to Koss’s motion for summary judgment, merely noted that the AU had not pursued the overlay possibility. Surely the AU does not have to “flesh out” every reference to every possible ailment mentioned by every examining physician in order to avoid an award of attorney’s fees under the EAJA. The reference by the court to a faulty analysis under Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir.1984) is even more problematic. Polaski requires a careful evaluation of a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain. Here, the ALJ assumed the validity of claimant’s subjective complaints in his disability analysis. Thus, there was no Polaski deficiency in this case. In fact, the Polaski analysis becomes irrelevant when the subjective complaints are credited by the ALJ.