Pruitt v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 29

ORDER denying plaintiff's 25 motion for EAJA fees...see order for specifics. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 6/2/2016. (cla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RENAE DEENELL PRUITT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-15-0207-HE

ORDER
Plaintiff has moved for an award of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice
Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. §2412. She argues that the Commissioner’s position was not
“substantially justified” and that, in light of the court’s reversal of the Commissioner’s
decision and remand of the case [Doc. Nos. 23 & 24], an award of EAJA fees is appropriate.
EAJA provides for an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party unless the
position of the government was “substantially justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). To be
viewed as “substantially justified,” the government’s position must have been “justified in
substance or in the main” or “justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.”
Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). The government’s litigating position may
meet this standard even if it was not successful on the merits. Madron v. Astrue, 646 F.3d
1255, 1257–58 (10th Cir. 2011).
Here, the basis for the reversal of the Commissioner’s determination was less a matter
of substance than a matter of form. The court’s determination was not that the ALJ’s

credibility determination was necessarily wrong, but that the ALJ had failed to “provide the
necessary explanation and analysis to support the credibility determination . . . .” [Doc. No.
23, at 2.] The court concluded the decision did not provide the necessary explanation linking
the evidence cited and the ALJ’s conclusions as to credibility. Given the basis for the
reversal and remand, and that other evidence in the record cited by the ALJ arguably
supported the credibility determination had it been properly presented and explained, the
court concludes the government’s litigating position was “substantially justified” within the
meaning of the statute.
Plaintiff’s motion for EAJA fees [Doc. No. 25] is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 2nd day of June, 2016.