Curtis v. Social Security Administration
Filing
27
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West granting 23 Motion for Attorney Fees; and granting 26 Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees. (sjr, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SHARON CURTIS, on behalf of
C.D.C., a minor,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-14-200-KEW
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Award of Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act
(Docket Entry #23) and Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for Award of
Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (Docket
Entry #26).
By Order and Opinion entered September 29, 2015, this
Court reversed the decision of the Commissioner to deny Plaintiff’s
application for Child’s Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI
of the Social Security Act and remanded the case for further
proceedings.
In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees for 25.90 hours
of time expended by her attorney at the stipulated fee rate for a
total request of $4,901.80 under the authority of the Equal Access
to Justice Act (“EAJA”).
Because Plaintiff filed a reply to the
first Motion, she filed a supplemental fee motion seeking an
additional $676.80 for 3.60 hours expended in preparing the reply.
The Commissioner contests the award of EAJA fees, contending
position in the underlying case was substantially justified.
her
EAJA provides that a prevailing party other than the United
States shall be awarded fees and costs unless the court finds 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). With respect to EAJA applications in Social Security
cases, Defendant has the burden of showing that her position was
substantially justified. Hadden v. Bowen, 851 F.2d 1266, 1267 (10th
Cir. 1988).
Defendant must prove that, even if her position is
incorrect, her case had a reasonable basis in law and in fact.
Id.
To establish substantial justification, Defendant must show that
there is a genuine dispute and that reasonable people could differ
concerning the propriety of a particular agency action.
Pierce v.
Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1987). The government’s “position can
be justified even though it is not correct . . . and it can be
substantially (i.e., for the most part) justified if a reasonable
person could think it correct
Clearly,
Plaintiff
. . .”
constituted
Id. at 566 n.2.
the
prevailing
party
in
accordance with this Court’s decision. The Commissioner states that
the ALJ cited to specific evidence supporting his credibility
findings and properly evaluated Claimant’s credibility, thereby
making the government’s position substantially justified.
This
Court noted that the ALJ provided a boilerplate explanation of his
credibility findings and did not proceed through the appropriate
analysis of Claimant’s credibility. It is impossible for this Court
to now conclude that the Commissioner’s position was substantially
2
justified when the decision did not have a reasonable basis in fact
or law.
Similarly, this Court concluded that the ALJ did not properly
analyze all of the six domain areas in evaluating whether Claimant
met Listing § 112.11.
the
requirements
Again, this failure is directly contrary to
under
the
law
and
cannot
be
considered
substantially justified. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to the
attorney fees expended in the preparation of the briefing in the
case and in the filing of a reply.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Award of
Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (Docket
Entry
#23)
and
Plaintiff’s
Supplemental
Motion
for
Award
of
Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (Docket
Entry #26) are GRANTED and that the Government be ordered to pay
Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees in the total amount of $5,578.60.
In
accordance with the ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals,
the award shall be made to Plaintiff as the prevailing party and not
directly to Plaintiff’s counsel.
Manning v. Astrue, 510 F.3d 1246,
1255 (10th Cir. 2007); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b).
In addition, should
Plaintiff’s counsel ultimately be awarded attorney’s fees pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1), counsel shall refund the smaller amount
to Plaintiff. Weakley v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 575, 580 (10th Cir. 1986).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of April, 2016.
______________________________
KIMBERLY E. WEST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3
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?