Stura v. Social Security Administration
Filing
32
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West granting 23 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 26 Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees; and denying 30 Second Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees. (sjr, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRISTOPHER F. STURA,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.
Case No. CIV-14-521-KEW
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Claimant’s Motion for
Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (Docket
Entry #23).
By Order and Opinion entered March 30, 2016, this
Court reversed the decision of the Commissioner to deny Claimant’s
applications for disability insurance benefits under Title II and
for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social
Security Act and remanded the case for further proceedings.
In the Motion, Claimant seeks attorney’s fees for 32.70 hours
of time expended by his attorney at the stipulated fee rate for a
total request of $6,213.00 under the authority of the Equal Access
to Justice Act (“EAJA”).
The Commissioner contests the award of
EAJA fees, contending her position in the underlying case was
substantially justified.
Because Claimant was required to file a
reply to respond to the Commissioner’s objection, he filed a
Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees to include 8.50 hours of
legal time or $1,615.00.
The Commissioner responded to the
Supplemental Motion which drew a further reply from Claimant.
Claimant then filed a second Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees
to cover the time expended to prepare the latter reply.
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
2412(d)(1)(A).
With
make
an
respect
award
to
unjust.
EAJA
28
applications
U.S.C.
in
§
Social
Security cases, Defendant has the burden of showing that her
Hadden v. Bowen, 851 F.2d
position was substantially justified.
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
. . .”
Id. at 566 n.2.
Clearly,
Claimant
constituted
the
accordance with this Court’s decision.
prevailing
party
in
This Court reversed the
ALJ’s decision finding that his findings at step four under the
evaluation mandated by Winfrey v. Chater, 92 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir.
1996).
The testimony of the vocational expert did not support a
finding on the mental requirements of Claimant’s past relevant
2
work.
Necessarily, the position of the Commissioner at step four
cannot be substantially justified when the evidentiary record does
not support the ALJ’s findings.
Since the Commissioner did not object to the reasonableness of
the
supplemental
fee
request,
the
additional
fees
preparation of Claimant’s reply will be awarded.
for
the
However, the
second Supplement Motion for Attorney Fees will be denied as
Claimant’s reply brief filed in regard to the first Supplemental
Motion added nothing to further the arguments.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Claimant’s Motion for Attorney
Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (Docket Entry #23)
and Claimant’s Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees (Docket Entry
#26) are hereby GRANTED and that the Government be ordered to pay
Claimant’s attorney’s fees in the total amount of $7,828.00.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Claimant’s (second) Supplemental
Motion for Attorney Fees (Docket Entry #30) is hereby DENIED.
In accordance the ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals, the award with shall be made to Claimant as the prevailing
party and not directly to Claimant’s counsel.
Manning v. Astrue,
510 F.3d 1246, 1255 (10th Cir. 2007); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b).
addition,
should
Claimant’s
counsel
ultimately
be
In
awarded
attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1), counsel shall
refund the smaller amount to Claimant.
575, 580 (10th Cir. 1986).
3
Weakley v. Bowen, 803 F.2d
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of November, 2016.
______________________________
KIMBERLY E. WEST
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?