Haynes v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 31

ORDER granting 28 plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 5/19/2016. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JASMINE HAYNES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-1194-M

ORDER
On January 5, 2016, United States District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange entered an Order
and Judgment in this case reversing the decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Administration and remanding this case for further administrative proceedings. Based on same, on
March 30, 2016, counsel for plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to
Justice Act, requesting an award of fees in the amount of $4,667.60. On April 13, 2016, defendant
filed her response, and on April 20, 2016, plaintiff filed her reply.
Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), the prevailing party in an action brought
by or against the United States is entitled to fees, other expenses, and costs “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). It is the government’s burden to show that its
position was substantially justified. Hadden v. Bowen, 851 F.2d 1266, 1267 (10th Cir. 1988). “To
do so, the government must prove that its case had a reasonable basis in law and in fact.” Id.
Further, the United States Supreme Court has defined “substantially justified” as “‘justified in
substance or in the main’ – that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.”
Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988).

In determining whether the government’s position was reasonable,
the trial judge must make a separate review of the government’s
position to determine whether it was substantially justified. The term
“position” includes the government’s position both in the underlying
agency action and during any subsequent litigation.
The
government’s success or failure on the merits at each level may be
evidence of whether its position was substantially justified, but that
success or failure alone is not determinative of the issue.
Hadden, 851 F.2d. at 1267 (internal citations omitted). The Tenth Circuit has held that the
government’s position can be substantially justified even though it is not correct. See Madron v.
Astrue, 646 F.3d 1255, 1257 (10th Cir. 2011).
In her response, defendant asserts that the government’s position was substantially justified.
Specifically, defendant contends that because reasonable people can disagree whether the
Administrative Law Judge’s decision in this case was appropriate, defendant was substantially
justified. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions and the case file, the Court finds that
defendant has not satisfied her burden of showing that the government’s position was substantially
justified.
Accordingly, because defendant has failed to show that her position was substantially
justified, the Court finds that plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees under the EAJA. The Court further
finds that the amount of attorney fees requested by plaintiff, $4,667.60, is reasonable.
The Court, therefore, GRANTS plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees under the Equal Access
to Justice Act [docket no. 28] and AWARDS plaintiff EAJA fees in the amount of $4,667.60, to be
paid directly to plaintiff. If attorney’s fees are also awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) of the Social

2

Security Act, plaintiff’s counsel shall refund the smaller award to plaintiff pursuant to Weakley v.
Bowen, 803 F.2d 575, 580 (10th Cir. 1986).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of May, 2016.

3