Dlugos v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 27

ORDER denying 23 Motion for Attorney's Fees. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 8/29/2024. (jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOYCE M. D.,1

Case No.: 3:22-cv-00318-BEN-DEB
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,

15
16

Defendant.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES

Plaintiff Joyce M. D. filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social Security
Commissioner’s denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits. The parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment. The United States Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation which recommended this Court grant Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, thereby affirming the decision of the Commissioner.
Specifically, the R&R found the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) had sufficiently
explained the consistency and supportability factors when evaluating each medical

26
27
28

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), this Order identifies the non-government party by
the first name and initial of the last name.
1

1
3:22-cv-00318-BEN-DEB

1

provider’s opinion. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation.

2

Ultimately, the Report and Recommendation was only partially adopted and, contrary to

3

the Recommendation, the appeal was remanded. Now, Plaintiff requests an award of

4

attorney’s fees in the amount of $11,106.58 under the Equal Access to Justice Act

5

(“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).

6

A prevailing party is not entitled to fees under EAJA if the government’s position

7

in defending the case was “substantially justified.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A);

8

Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 556, n.2 (1988); Le v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 1200, 1201

9

(9th Cir. 2008). Here, the Commissioner’s defense concerning the main issue for review

10

(the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical opinions and prior administrative findings) was

11

substantially justified as evidenced by, inter alia, the fact that the United States

12

Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical opinions and prior

13

administrative findings was supported by substantial evidence. See Lewis v. Barnhart,

14

281 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that in determining whether the

15

Commissioner was substantially justified a district court can consider among other things

16

a magistrate judge’s recommendation to uphold the ALJ’s decision).

17

CONCLUSION

18

This Court’s own review finds that the Commissioner was substantially justified in

19

its defense of the Commissioner’s final decision. The United States Magistrate Judge’s

20

exhaustive analysis and agreement with the Commissioner’s conclusion is further

21

evidence that the defense was substantially justified. Therefore, while Plaintiff ultimately

22

prevailed, Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of Attorney’s fees under the EAJA.

23

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 29, 2024

_________________________________
HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ
United States District Judge

28
2
3:22-cv-00318-BEN-DEB