Dougherty v. Astrue

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM ORDER - re 22 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Catherine E. Dougherty. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 1/28/2015. (mdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
)
)
CATHERINE DOUGHERTY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner
)
of the Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-)

C.A. No. 08-814 GMS

MEMORANDUM ORDER
I.

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the court is a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice
Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), filed by the plaintiff, Catherine Dougherty ("Dougherty").
(D.I. 22.) Dougherty filed her motion following the court's entry of an order granting her request
to remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings. (D.I. 21.) For the following reasons, the
court grant Dougherty's motion and award attorney's fees in the amount of $9,255.50.
II.

BACKGROUND

Dougherty seeks attorney's fees for 53.5 hours at a rate of $173.00 per hour, totaling
$9,255.50. 1 (D.I. 24 at 10.) In support of the motion, Dougherty has submitted a Declaration of
David F. Chermol and Michael J. Goodrick ("Declaration"), her counsel in this matter, setting
forth: (1) the dates on which counsel worked on this matter; (2) the activity undertaken on each

1

This total includes an additional 10.5 hours in connection with time expended in litigating the EAJA Fee
issue. (See D.I. 24 at 10.)

such date; and (3) the total number of hours expended for the work performed on that date. (D.I.
22 at 7-8.) The Commissioner opposes Dougherty's request, arguing that the government's
position was substantially justified. (D.I. 23.) The Commissioner also challenges the amount of
the fees requested as excessive. (Id.)

III.

LEGAL STAND ARD
The EAJA provides that "a prevailing party in a litigation against the government shall be

awarded 'fees and other expenses . . . incurred by that party . . . unless the court finds that the
position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an
award unjust."' Williams v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 299, 301 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d)(l )(A)). The "burden of establishing that there is substantial justification for its position"
lays with the government. Morgan v. Perry, 142 F.3d 670, 684 (3d Cir. 1998). "The Supreme
Court has defined substantial justification under the EAJA as 'justified in substance or in the
main-that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person."' Id. at 683 (quoting
Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988)). "[T]he government's position is substantially

justified 'if it has a reasonable basis in law and fact."' Id. at 684 (quoting Hanover Potato Prods.,
Inc. v. Shala/a, 989 F.2d 123, 128 (3d Cir. 1993)). To defeat a prevailing party's application for

fees, the government must establish that there is substantial justification for its position by
demonstrating "(1) a reasonable basis in truth for the facts alleged; (2) a reasonable basis in law
for the theory it propounded; and (3) a reasonable connection between the facts alleged and the
legal theory advanced." Williams, 600 F.3d at 302.

IV.

ANALYSIS
The court must first determine if Dougherty is the "prevailing party." See 28 U.S.C. §

2412(d)(l)(A). The parties do not dispute that Dougherty is the prevailing party. On May 7, 2010,

2

the court entered an order remanding Dougherty's application for further administrative
proceedings. (D .I. 21.) Dougherty is therefore a prevailing party within the meaning of the EAJ A.

See Shala/av. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302-03 (1993).
The government has not met its burden of establishing substantial justification pursuant to
the three-pronged analysis. First, the government has not established a reasonable basis in truth
for the facts alleged because he failed to provide record evidence to support the conclusion that
the medical opinion of Dougherty's treating physician, Dr. Gossinger, was contradicted by the
objective medical evidence.

(D.I. 21 at 12.) Second, the government has not established a

reasonable basis in law for its position. The court noted a number of errors made by the ALJ
related to the decision to reject Dr. Gossinger's medical opinion. (Id.) The court determined that
the ALJ' s rejection of Dr. Gossinger was not supported by substantial evidence. (Id.) All of this
was established by Third Circuit precedent and SSA regulations. Thus, there was no reasonable
basis in law for the government's defense of the ALJ' s error. Third, the government has failed to
establish a reasonable connection between the facts alleged and the legal theory advanced. The
court detailed numerous pieces of evidence that provided justification for Dr. Gossinger' s opinion
and made clear that the ALJ's decision to afford Dr. Gossinger's opinion no weight was not
supported by substantial evidence. (Id. at 13-16.) Consequently, the government has not satisfied
the three prongs of the analysis to persuade the court that substantial justification exists. 2

2

The court is also unpersuaded by the government's arguments related to the reasonableness of Dougherty's
fee request. (See D.I. 23 at 7-12.) The government provides no convincing basis to find any unnecessary duplication
of effort. Additionally, Plaintiffs counsel "in an exercise of billing discretion" chose not to seek recovery of 17 hours
that were expended on the case. (D.I. 22 at~ 6.) The court similarly finds no reason to address the government's
generalized objections in light of Dougherty's counsel's expertise and the "routine" nature of this dispute. See, e.g.,
U.S. v. Eleven Vehicles, Their Equipment and Accessories, 200 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2000) ("a court may not reduce
counsel fees sua sponte as 'excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary' in the absence of a sufficiently specific
objection to the amount of fees requested.").

3

V.

CONCLUSION
The court concludes that the government has not met its burden. Accordingly, the Court

will award to Plaintiff an attorney's fees award in the amount of$9,255.50, representing 53.5 hours
of attorney time billed at $173.00 per hour. The payment shall be made directly to the order of
David F. Chermol, Esquire, subject to any offset to satisfy a pre-existing, qualifying debt the
plaintiff may owe to the United States. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010).

Dated: January

tJ5{_, 2015

4