Goode v. Colvin
Filing
21
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 16 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 3/25/2015. (nv)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 1:14-cv-00056-FDW
CYNTHIA D. GOODE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
)
ACTING COMMISIONER OF SOCIAL )
SECURITY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 16)
pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Defendant filed a
response in opposition to Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. No. 18), arguing that
the Commissioner’s defense of the final decision was substantially justified. For the reasons that
follow, the motion is DENIED.
On March 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court for a review of the ALJ’s
decision. (Doc. No. 1). Both Plaintiff and Defendant filed cross motions for Summary Judgment.
(Doc. No. 8 and Doc. No. 12). On November 24, 2014, the Court remanded the case for further
administrative proceedings for the ALJ to inquire further into the purported conflicts between the
DOT guidelines and the RFC limitations. (Doc. No. 14). In response to the remand order, on
February 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney’s fees and Cost. (Doc. No. 16).
The parties do not dispute the fact that Plaintiff is the prevailing party. When the court
remands under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the plaintiff is the prevailing party. See
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). Granting a motion for attorney’s fees and costs
1
to the “prevailing party” under the EAJA is proper “unless the court finds that the position of the
United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28
U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). A court’s decision to award attorney’s fees is within its sound discretion.
May v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 176, 177 (4th Cir. 1991).
Defendant has the burden of showing that its position was substantially justified. United
States v. 515 Granby, LLC, 736 F.3d 309, 314 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing EEOC v. Clay Printing Co.,
13 F.3d 813, 815 (4th Cir. 1994)). Substantial justification does not require the position to be
correct but may be substantially justified if a reasonable person could think it correct. See Pierce
v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 566 n.2 (1988). “The government can defeat a claim for attorney’s
fees by showing that its position had a reasonable basis in both fact and law.” Crawford v. Sullivan,
935 F.2d 655, 656 (4th Cir. 1991) (citing Pierce, 487 U.S. at 565). Defendant’s position in case
includes “both the agency’s prelitigation conduct and the Department of Justice’s subsequent
litigation position.” Crawford, 935 F.2d at 656-67 (citing I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (1990)); see
also Granby1, 736 F.3d at 315-16.
“In determining whether the government’s position in a case is substantially justified, [the
Court] look[s] beyond the issue on which the petitioner prevailed to determine, from the totality
of the circumstances, whether the government acted reasonably in causing or in taking a
[particular] stance during the litigation.” Meyer v. Colvin, No. 13-1700, slip. op. at 8-9 (4th Cir.
June 10, 2014) (quoting Roanoke River Basin Ass’n v. Hudson, 991 F.2d 132, 139 (4th Cir. 1993)).
In making this determination, “it is appropriate to consider the reasonable overall objectives of the
1
When a court has independently determined that the prelitigation position is unreasonable but the litigation position
reasonable, “the government must prove that the unreasonable position did not ‘force’ the litigation or substantially
alter the course of the litigation.” Granby, 735 F.3d at 317. However, generally an unreasonable prelitigation position
will lead to an award of fees under the EAJA. Id. The Court need not address this point on this case.
2
government and the extent to which the alleged governmental misconduct departed from them.”
Id. at 14 (quoting Roanoke River Basin, 991 F.2d at 139)
Here, the Court remanded for the ALJ to inquire further into the purported conflicts
between the DOT guidelines and the RFC limitations. Defendant argues her position was
substantially justified because the ALJ inquired of the vocational expert whether there were any
conflicts between the testimony about jobs, and the vocational expert stated no. (Doc. No. 18).
Defendant argues the ALJ satisfied his duties by inquiring whether there were any conflicts and
then relying on the response to the inquiry in issuing the decision. Defendant argues “the Fourth
Circuit has held that SSR 00-4p does not require an ALJ to uncover conflicts between the VE’s
testimony and DOT evidence, but rather requires the ALJ to inquire only if apparent conflicts exist
between a VE’s testimony and the DOT and to resolve such discrepancies.” Powell v. Colvin, 2014
WL 7005258 at *12 (D.S.C. Dec. 11, 2014) (citing Justin v. Massinari, 20 F. App’x 158, 160 (4th
Cir. 2001)).
Plaintiff relies on Gurthrie v. Schweiker, in arguing that if the record is deficient, and, as a
result, the government’s position based on the record cannot be substantially justified. See
Gurthrie v. Schweiker, 718 F.2d 104, 108 (4th Cir. 1983). However, the court in Gurthrie found
that even an entry of summary judgment for the claimant does not raise a presumption that the
government’s position was not substantially justified. Id. The court goes on to state, “It is possible,
however, for the administrative record to be so deficient that the government would not be
substantially justified in relying on it.” Id. (emphasis added) In this case, the record was not “so”
deficient that it could not possibly be relied on by Defendant. The record was only lacking in the
use of different terms in the hypothetical posed from the DOT requirements.
3
Even though the case was remanded to the ALJ for clarification, the Court noted in its
remand of the case that the discrepancies may have no bearing on the ALJ’s decision. The Court
also declined to address the other arguments in the parties’ motions for summary judgment due to
the remand to the ALJ. Defendant’s position need not be correct to be substantially justified, and
even though this case was remanded, Defendant’s position was substantially justified, particularly
where the error may have no bearing on the ALJ’s decision.
IT IS, THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 25, 2015
4
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?