Sproule v. Colvin

Filing 34

ORDER that Plaintiff's 29 Motion for Attorney Fees is granted. Plaintiff is awarded $7,836.13 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/9/2014.(LFIG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Deborah Marie Sproule,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-13-01427-PHX-DGC

Carolyn W. Colvin,

13

Defendant.

14
15

Plaintiff brought this action for judicial review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)

16

after her application for disability benefits was denied. Doc. 1. The Court reversed

17

Defendant’s decision and remanded the case for an award of benefits. Doc. 27.

18

Plaintiff has filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to

19

Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (“EAJA”). Doc. 29. The motion is fully briefed and no

20

party has requested oral argument. For reasons that follow, the Court will grant the

21

motion and award Plaintiff attorney’s fees in the amount of $7,836.13.

22

“The EAJA creates a presumption that fees will be awarded to prevailing parties.”

23

Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 567 (9th Cir. 1995). Plaintiff is a prevailing party

24

because this matter was remanded pursuant to sentence four of the Social Security Act,

25

42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

26

Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court should award

27

reasonable attorney’s fees under the EAJA unless Defendant shows that her position in

28

this case was “substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.”

Doc. 28; see Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 301 (1993);

1

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see Gutierrez, 274 F.3d at 1258. A position is substantially

2

justified “if it has a reasonable basis in fact and law.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S.

3

552, 566 n.2 (1988).

4

Defendant does not contend that an award of fees in this case would be unjust.

5

Nor has she shown that the positions taken in defense of the ALJ’s erroneous decision

6

were substantially justified. Defendant argues that because “reasonable people could

7

disagree whether the ALJ’s decision in this case was appropriate,” her position in this

8

case was substantially justified. Doc. 32 at 3.

9

The Court found that the ALJ committed legal error by failing to identify legally

10

sufficient reasons for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Nolan, one of Plaintiff’s treating

11

physicians. Doc. 27 at 4. The opinion of a treating or examining physician “can only be

12

rejected for specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in

13

the record.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal citation omitted).

14

The Court found that the ALJ failed to offer anything more than conclusions in support of

15

her decision to reject the opinion of Dr. Nolan and referred generally to its contradiction

16

with other evidence in the record rather than specifically identifying and interpreting the

17

contradictory evidence. Doc. 27 at 4. Because the ALJ’s decision did not comport with

18

the Ninth Circuit’s requirement for rejecting the opinion of a treating or examining

19

physician, Defendant’s position cannot be said to have a “reasonable basis in law” and

20

was not substantially justified.

21

Plaintiff’s counsel, Mark Caldwell, has filed an affidavit (Doc. 31) and an

22

itemized statement of fees (Doc. 31-1) showing that he worked 41.90 hours on this case.1

23

Having reviewed the affidavit and the statement of fees, and having considered the

24

relevant fee award factors, see Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429-30 & n.3 (1983),

25

the Court finds that the amount of the requested fee award is reasonable.

26

///

27
1

28

Plaintiff’s reply brief requests fees for an additional 1.7 hours of time spent
drafting the reply brief. Doc. 33 at 4. Because the request is not accompanied by any
supporting documentation, the Court will not consider it.
-2-

1

IT IS ORDERED:

2

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (Doc. 29) is granted.

3

2.

Plaintiff is awarded $7,836.13 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412.

4

Dated this 9th day of July, 2014.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-