Davis v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 38

ORDER denying 35 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Honorable Henry M Herlong, Jr on 8/26/2011.(gnan )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION

Johnny Vernon Davis, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 1:10-1429-HMH-SVH
OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the court on a motion for attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access
to Justice Act (“EAJA”). See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Johnny Vernon Davis, Jr. (“Davis”) seeks
attorney fees for services rendered in the above-captioned social security action in the amount of
Two Thousand One Hundred Eighty-Nine Dollars and Eighty-Three Cents ($2,189.83). The
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) objects to the request
for attorney fees.
“A party who prevails in litigation against the United States is entitled to EAJA
attorneys’ fees upon timely petition for them if the government’s position was not substantially
justified and no special circumstances make an award unjust.” Thompson v. Sullivan, 980 F.2d
280, 281 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he test of whether or not a
government action is substantially justified is essentially one of reasonableness.” Smith v.
Heckler, 739 F.2d 144, 146 (4th Cir. 1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In order to
defeat an award, the government must show that its case had a reasonable basis both in law and
fact.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantially justified” means “justified in
1

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) (internal quotation marks omitted). Hence, the
“substantially justified” standard is “satisfied if there is a genuine dispute . . . or if reasonable
people could differ as to the appropriateness of the contested action.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted).
After review of the record, the court finds that the Commissioner’s position was
substantially justified because reasonable minds could differ as to the appropriate outcome in
this action. Davis sought review of the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of disability
insurance benefits and social security income, arguing, in part, that the ALJ failed to fully
consider and explain the cumulative effect of his impairments. (Pl. Br. 8-9.) The Commissioner
contended that the ALJ’s express statement that he considered all of Davis’ impairments
coupled with the ALJ’s detailed residual functional capacity findings demonstrated that the ALJ
adequately considered the cumulative effect of Davis’ impairments. (Comm’r Objections 3-4;
Comm’r Mem. Supp. Mot. Recons. 2-3.) Although the Commissioner’s argument was rejected
by the magistrate judge and this court, other courts within the Fourth Circuit have found this
argument persuasive. See, e.g., Smith v. Astrue, No. 109CV00031, 2010 WL 420049, at *4
(W.D. Va. Feb. 1, 2010) (unpublished); Jones v. Astrue, No. 5:07-CV-452-FL, 2009 WL
455414, at *15 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 23, 2009) (unpublished). Because reasonable minds could differ
about the outcome of this action, the court concludes that the Commissioner’s argument was
substantially justified.

2

It is therefore
ORDERED that Davis’ motion for attorney fees, docket number 35, is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Henry M. Herlong, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
Greenville, South Carolina
August 26, 2011

3