Marsh v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
50
Order Denying Motion for Attorney's Fees by Judge Charles R. Breyer (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2015).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
15
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. C 11-2096 CRB
NAOMI MARSH,
/
Now before this Court is Petitioner’s motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal
Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) following this Court’s remand of the case to the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) for review consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in
favor of Petitioner. See Mot. for Attorney Fees Under the EAJA (dkt. 41); Marsh v. Colvin,
792 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2015); Order Remanding to the ALJ With Instructions (dkt. 48).
Plaintiff contends that the government’s position was not substantially justified and thus,
because she prevailed in the Ninth Circuit, reasonable attorneys fees are to be awarded.
Plaintiff’s motion for fees is DENIED, as explained below.
I.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner filed an application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits
(“SSDIB”) on November 21, 2006, alleging disability beginning October 2, 2001.
Administrative Record (“AR”) at 89–96. The Commissioner denied Petitioner’s application
in April 2007 and again upon reconsideration in June 2007. Id. at 60–70. Plaintiff appealed
1
to an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). Id. at 74. The ALJ affirmed. Id. at 13–22.
2
Petitioner filed a civil action in April 2011, see Compl. for Disability Benefits Under the
3
Social Security Act (dkt. 1), and then filed a motion for summary judgment in November
4
2011. See Plaintiff’s Mot. for Summary Judgment and/or Remand (dkt. 18). The
5
Commissioner filed a cross motion for summary judgment. See Defendant’s Cross-Mot. for
6
Summary Judgment (dkt. 23). This Court entered judgment in favor of the Commissioner in
7
May 2012. See Judgment (dkt. 28). Plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration, which
8
this Court denied. See Mot. for Reconsideration (dkt. 29); Order Denying Mot. for
9
Reconsideration (dkt. 32).
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Petitioner appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed. See Plaintiff’s Notice of
11
Appeal (dkt. 33); Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th Cir. 2015) (finding that the
12
ALJ’s omission of Dr. Betat’s notes was not harmless error). Petitioner now requests that the
13
Court grant her motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the EAJA. See Mot. for Attorney Fees
14
Under the EAJA (dkt. 41).
15
II.
16
LEGAL STANDARD
A court shall award a prevailing party its fees and expenses in an action against the
17
United States unless “the position of the United States was substantially justified or special
18
circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). A position is
19
substantially justified if it is justified to a point that could satisfy a reasonable person, i.e., it
20
has a reasonable basis in law or fact. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988); see
21
League of Women Voters v. Federal Communications Commission, 798 F.2d 1255, 1260
22
(9th. Cir. 1986) (stating that when a dispute is one over which reasonable minds could differ,
23
that is evidence that the government’s position was substantially justified). In making such a
24
determination, the court must consider the totality of the circumstances, which incorporates
25
both the underlying governmental action and the government’s litigation position. See Kali
26
v. Bowen, 854 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that the inquiry includes whether both
27
the original action and the defense of the action was substantially justified); see also
28
Rawlings v. Heckler, 725 F.2d 1192, 1196 (9th Cir. 1984). The government’s failure to
2
1
prevail does not raise a presumption that its position was not substantially justified. Kali,
2
854 F.2d at 332. It is the Commissioner’s burden to show that her position was substantially
3
justified. Id.
4
If the government’s position was not substantially justified, the next step in the
5
inquiry is to determine whether the fees requested are reasonable. See Hensley v. Eckerhart,
6
461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The starting point for this inquiry is “the number of hours
7
reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Id. A
8
reasonable rate is determined by reference to the marketplace. See, e.g., Missouri v. Jenkins,
9
491 U.S. 274, 285 (1989) (noting that “we have consistently looked to the marketplace as our
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
guide to what is ‘reasonable.’”).
11
III.
12
DISCUSSION
After prevailing in the Ninth Circuit, Petitioner alleges that attorneys’ fees are
13
warranted under the EAJA because the Commissioner’s position was not substantially
14
justified. See Mot. for Attorney Fees Under the EAJA (dkt. 41). Specifically, Petitioner
15
states that “the government’s legal positions, in the final administrative decision, in the
16
administrative appeal of that decision, in district court proceedings, and at the Ninth Circuit,
17
were that the findings were supported by substantial evidence, and that there were no
18
significant errors or unsupported findings that flawed the decision under review. Such
19
positions were not substantially justified, nor proper or supported by the record.” Id. at 4.
20
The Court disagrees.1
21
22
The Court must consider the totality of the circumstances in this litigation. At issue
are the two main phases of litigation: first, whether the ALJ erred in omitting Dr. Betat’s
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Because this Court finds that the government’s position was substantially justified and thus
attorneys’ fees are not warranted under the EAJA, the Court will not address the secondary issue of
amount of fees to be awarded. See Mot. for Attorney Fees Under the EAJA (dkt. 41); Defendant’s
Opp’n to Plaintiff’s Mot. for Attorney Fees Under the EAJA (dkt. 45).
3
1
note2 from his explanation of the denial of Petitioner’s SSIB application, and second,
2
whether the omission was harmless error.
3
First, the Commissioner’s defense of the ALJ’s omission of Dr. Betat’s note was
substantially justified. Evidence from a treating physician is given deference, and the ALJ
5
may only reject the opinion of a treating physician if it makes “findings setting forth specific,
6
legitimate reasons for doing so that are based on substantial evidence in the record.” Thomas
7
v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002); see Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751
8
(9th Cir. 1989). However, “the opinion of the treating physician is not necessarily
9
conclusive as to either the physical condition or the ultimate issue of disability.” Thomas,
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
4
278 F.3d at 956 (citing Morgan v. Comm’r of Social Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th
11
Cir. 1999)). Thus, “[t]he ALJ need not accept the opinion of any physician, including a
12
treating physician, if that opinion is brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical
13
findings.” Id. at 957; see Howard ex rel. Wolff v. Barnhart, 341 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir.
14
2003) (noting that an “ALJ is not required to discuss evidence that is neither significant nor
15
probative.”).
16
The Commissioner contended that Dr. Betat was neither Plaintiff’s ongoing treating
17
physician nor providing a medical opinion. See Defendant’s Cross-Mot. for Summary
18
Judgment (dkt. 23) at 3–4; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502 (defining “treating physician”).
19
Thus, the Commissioner asserted, the ALJ was not required to explicitly mention statements
20
like those made by Dr. Betat. See Thomas, 278 F.3d at 957. Although this Court found that
21
Dr. Betat was in fact Plaintiff’s treating physician, see Order Denying Petitioner’s Mot. for
22
Summary Judgment (dkt. 27) at 7, the Court recognized that Dr. Betat’s notes “provide[d]
23
minimal additional insight as to Petitioner’s condition.” See id. at 9; see also 20 C.F.R. §
24
404.1527(a)(2) (noting that medical opinions must “reflect judgments about the nature and
25
severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including . . . symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis.”).
26
27
2
28
The note at issue states that, “she is pretty much nonfunctional” and “appears to be disabled”
but cautions that “[i]t seems to be legitimate, although it is sometimes difficult to tell for sure.” AR at
498 (emphasis added).
4
1
The Commissioner’s position in defense of the ALJ’s ruling had a reasonable basis; a
2
reasonable person could be satisfied that the ALJ, of its own prerogative and based on the
3
lack of substance in Dr. Betat’s note, properly determined that the doctor lacked credibility
4
and offered statements that were “brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical
5
findings.” Thomas, 278 F.3d at 957; see Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1121–22 (9th Cir.
6
2012) (stating that “it is the ALJ’s prerogative to determine the credibility of witnesses.”).
7
On this record, it was reasonable for the Commissioner to argue that Dr. Betat’s note was not
8
probative. See Order Denying Petitioner’s Mot. for Summary Judgment (dkt. 27) at 9
9
(stating that, “[w]hile Dr. Betat refers to tenderness, nerve trigger points, sensitivity, and
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
aches and pains, [see AR at 496–508], his notes do not suggest, much less objectively
11
diagnose, additional medical conditions.”). Although this Court agreed that the ALJ could
12
have stated its reasoning more explicitly, see Order Denying Petitioner’s Mot. for Summary
13
Judgment (dkt. 27) at 8, the Commissioner’s failure to prevail on this point does not establish
14
that her position lacked substantial justification. See Kali, 854 F.2d at 332.
15
Second, the Commissioner was substantially justified in arguing that the ALJ’s
16
omission of Dr. Betat’s note was harmless error, notwithstanding the Ninth Circuit’s recent
17
ruling to the contrary. In fact, this Court ruled in favor of the Commissioner on this point
18
and acknowledged that “[a]lthough the Court found that the ALJ should have acknowledged
19
that Dr. Betat was Petitioner’s treating physician at a relevant time, it found that Dr. Betat’s
20
SOAP clinical notes simply did not include evidence which would have altered the ALJ’s
21
final determination.”). See Order Denying Mot. for Reconsideration (dkt. 32) at 3; see also
22
Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that
23
harmless error can be found if a court “can confidently conclude that no reasonable ALJ,
24
when fully crediting the testimony, could have reached a different disability determination.”).
25
Dr. Betat’s notes did not “reveal a substantially different picture than the one interpreted by
26
the ALJ.” See Order Denying Petitioner’s Mot. for Summary Judgment (dkt. 27) at 9.
27
28
It was reasonable for the Commissioner to contend that the omission of the doctor’s
opinion was harmless error given the evidence in the record. See Hardisty v. Astrue, 592
5
1
F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating that the government’s position “was substantially
2
justified because all of the inferences upon which it rested had substance in the record.”). As
3
described above, the note did not add anything of substance to the record. Furthermore, this
4
Court’s view that Dr. Betat’s note lacked substance lends support to the justification behind
5
the Commissioner’s position. See Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081,1084 (9th Cir. 2002)
6
(stating that the opinion of other judges is evidence as to whether a position is substantially
7
justified, though not dispositive). The fact that the Ninth Circuit reversed on this point is
8
proof that “reasonable minds could differ” and thus, the Commissioner’s position was also
9
reasonable. See League of Women Voters, 798 F.2d at 1260.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
IV.
CONCLUSION
Considering the totality of the circumstances and the evidence in the record, this Court
12
finds that the Commissioner satisfied her burden to show that her position was substantially
13
justified such that attorneys’ fees under the EAJA are not warranted. For the foregoing
14
reasons, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 24, 2015
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?