Baldridge v. Social Security Administration
Filing
27
OPINION AND ORDER Awarding Attorneys' Fees to the Plaintiff Under the EAJA by Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder GRANTING 21 Motion for Attorney Fees AND 25 Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees by John Allen Baldridge. (ndd, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JOHN ALLEN BALDRIDGE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
)
Acting Commissioner of the Social )
Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
)
Case No. CIV-15-152-SPS
OPINION AND ORDER AWARDING
ATTORNEYS’ FEES TO THE PLAINTIFF UNDER THE EAJA
The Plaintiff was the prevailing party in this appeal of the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration’s decision denying benefits under the Social Security Act.
He seeks attorneys’ fees in the amount of $4,161.00, under the Equal Access to Justice
Act (the “EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. See Plaintiff’s Motion and Brief in Support for an
Award of Attorney’s Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act 28 U.S.C. § 2412
[Docket No. 21]. The Commissioner objects to the award of fees and urges the Court to
deny the request. In response, the Plaintiff has also submitted a supplement motion for
attorneys’ fees in the amount of $230.40, see Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for an
Award of Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act [Docket No. 25], which
the Commissioner also opposes [Docket No. 26].
For the reasons set forth below, the
Court concludes that the Plaintiff should be awarded all the requested fees and costs
under the EAJA as the prevailing party herein.
On appeal, the Plaintiff’s sole contention of error is that the ALJ failed to properly
determine the materiality of his substance abuse. This Court agreed with those assertions
and reversed with the instructions for the ALJ to properly consider the medical and other
source evidence. See Docket No. 20. The Commissioner’s opposition to the present fee
request is based on the assertion that her position with regard to the ALJ’s analysis
regarding drug and alcohol was substantially justified because “a reasonable person”
could find the ALJ’s analysis sufficient. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) (“[A] court shall
award to a prevailing party . . . fees and other expenses . . . unless the court finds that the
position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances
make an award unjust.”).
The Court disagrees.
In order to establish substantial
justification, the Commissioner must show that there was a reasonable basis for the
position she took not only on appeal but also in the administrative proceedings below.
See, e. g., Gutierrez v. Sullivan, 953 F.2d 579, 585 (10th Cir. 1992) (“We consider the
reasonableness of the position the Secretary took both in the administrative proceedings
and in the civil action Plaintiff commenced to obtain benefits.”), citing Fulton v. Heckler,
784 F.2d 348, 349 (10th Cir. 1986). See also Marquez v. Colvin, 2014 WL 2050754, at
*2 (D. Colo. May 16, 2014) (“For purposes of this litigation, the Commissioner’s
position is both the position it took in the underlying administrative proceeding and in
subsequent litigation defending that position.”). The Commissioner attempts to re-litigate
the arguments previously raised, asserting that the ALJ’s findings were not unreasonable.
But this Court has already ruled that the ALJ’s findings were reversible error and that he
did not provide the requisite analysis. Inasmuch as it was the ALJ’s obligation to provide
-2-
such a proper analysis, see, e. g., Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009 (10th Cir. 1996)
(“In the absence of ALJ findings supported by specific weighing of the evidence, we
cannot assess whether relevant evidence adequately supports the ALJ’s conclusion[.]”).
See also Drapeau v. Massanari, 255 F.3d 1211, 1214 (10th Cir. 2001) (“Although we
review the ALJ’s decision for substantial evidence, ‘we are not in a position to draw
factual conclusions on behalf of the ALJ.’”), quoting Prince v. Sullivan, 933 F.2d 598,
603 (7th Cir. 1991), it is difficult to see how anything said on appeal could justify the
ALJ’s failure to do so in light of this Court’s findings with regard to the ALJ’s
assessment regarding the materiality of substance abuse. See Hackett v. Barnhart, 475
F.3d 1166, 1174 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[W]e hold that EAJA ‘fees generally should be
awarded where the government’s underlying action was unreasonable even if the
government advanced a reasonable litigation position.’”), quoting United States v.
Marolf, 277 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002).
The Court therefore concludes that the Plaintiff should be awarded attorneys’ fees
and costs as the prevailing party under the EAJA. See, e. g., Gibson-Jones v. Apfel, 995
F. Supp. 825, 826-27 n.3 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (holding that the Commissioner’s position was
not substantially justified where the ALJ provided an inadequate basis for denying
benefits and adding: “It would be unfair to require Ms. Gibson-Jones to appeal her denial
of benefits and then not award her attorney’s fees because the ALJ is given a second
chance to support his position.”).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion and Brief in Support for
an Award of Attorney’s Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act 28 U.S.C. § 2412
-3-
[Docket No. 21] and Plaintiff’s Supplemental Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees
under the Equal Access to Justice Act [Docket No. 25] are hereby GRANTED and that
the Government is hereby ordered to pay total attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,391.40
to the Plaintiff as the Prevailing party herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the
Plaintiff’s attorney is subsequently awarded any fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1),
said attorney shall refund the smaller amount of such fees to the Plaintiff pursuant to
Weakley v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 575, 580 (10th Cir. 1986).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of November, 2016.
-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?