640 F. App'x 731
10th Cir.2016Background
- Teva Evans applied for supplemental security income; ALJ denied; Appeals Council denied; district court remanded and awarded EAJA; on remand, ALJ again denied and Appeals Council again denied; district court granted second remand and Evans sought EAJA on the second remand; district court denied; panel affirms denial of EAJA award.
- The issues on remand were (1) whether excluding a silverware wrapper job left remaining national-economy jobs in a significant number, and (2) whether restricting to unskilled work adequately accounts for Ms. Evans’s mental impairments.
- The government’s position on remand issues was deemed substantially justified; the panel reviews for abuse of discretion and, on law, de novo; focus is on whether the Commissioner’s litigation position was reasonable given unsettled precedent and the factual context.
- The district court had held the harmless-error argument could be reasonable and supported by Lewis/Chavez lineage; the appeals court ultimately upholds substantial-justification findings for both the national-jobs and mental-impairment analyses.
- The ultimate holding is that the district court’s EAJA denial was not clearly erroneous under the standard, and the district court’s reasoning was reasonable given the case-law landscape at the time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| National economy: significant-number threshold | Evans argues 18,831 remaining national jobs are not significant | Commissioner argued 18,831 is sufficient under substantial-justification due to precedent; post-hoc rationalization acceptable | Substantial justification supported; 18,831 remaining national jobs can be sufficient in context |
| Mental impairment: unskilled-work limitation adequacy | Unskilled work limitation does not adequately address focus/concentration impairments | Unskilled-work restriction can account for mild to moderate limitations in appropriate cases | Commissioner’s position reasonably justified; unskilled-work limitation could account for the impairments given the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Hackett v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 2007) (test for substantial justification: reasonableness in law and fact)
- Martinez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 815 F.2d 1381 (10th Cir. 1987) (unclear or in flux legal principle favors substantial justification)
- Trimiar v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1326 (10th Cir. 1992) (no bright-line rule for substantial-number threshold at step-five)
- Allen v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2004) (harmless-error may be appropriate where many jobs exist)
- Raymond v. Astrue, 621 F.3d 1269 (10th Cir. 2009) (focus on national vs regional economy; large job numbers may support harmless error)
- Ch Chavez v. Barnhart, 126 F. App’x 434 (10th Cir. 2005) (low regional job numbers influence harmless-error analysis)
- Jaramillo v. Colvin, 576 F. App’x 870 (10th Cir. 2014) (distinguishes mild vs moderate limits and unskilled-work sufficiency)
- Wendelin v. Astrue, 366 F. App’x 899 (10th Cir. 2010) (exception where unskilled-work may suffice to account for concentration issues)
- Groberg v. Astrue, 505 F. App’x 763 (10th Cir. 2011) (generally limits unskilled-work adequacy; exception when mental impairments are extensive)