Social Security: Attorney’s Fees Award Under EAJA Erroneously Decided Because ALJ’s Decision Is “Position of the United States” For Determining If Government Was Substantially Justified In Its Position

 

Remand Was Ordered to Consider $15,000-Plus Fee Request.

     In Meier v. Colvin, Case No. 11-35736 (9th Cir. July 23, 2013) (for publication), a social security disability benefits claimant suffered defeats at the administrative law level and the district court level, until the the Ninth Circuit in an earlier unpublished memorandum opinion reversed and remanded for a benefits award after determining the ALJ failed to provide reasons for rejecting certain proof submitted by claimant. Claimant then moved to recover over $15,000 in fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which has a fee-shifting provision mandating fees to a prevailing party other than the U.S. in any civil action unless the court finds that the position of the U.S. was “substantially justified.” The district court denied the requests, determining that the losses at the ALJ level showed there was sufficient governmental justification.

     The Ninth Circuit reversed the fee denial, reasoning that the ALJ’s decision as adjudicator was a “position of the United States” just as the government’s litigation position in the action. It observed that the pertinent EAJA provisions (28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), (d)(2)(D)) make no distinction between an agency’s adjudicative and adversarial acts. Based on the earlier decision finding the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, this also established that the U.S. position was not “substantially justified.” Reversed and remanded to fix an award of fees and costs.