505 F. App'x 763
10th Cir.2012Background
- Mr. Groberg sought EAJA fees after prevailing in this court and obtaining remand for benefits; district court denied the EAJA request.
- The district court found the government's position substantially justified, despite Groberg’s success on appeal.
- This court reversed and remanded with instructions to award an appropriate EAJA fee.
- Merits panel found serious errors in ALJ’s evaluation of Groberg’s mental impairments and potential spinal impairment.
- The panel held the ALJ’s mental impairment analysis was deficient and that the Commissioner’s litigation position on mental impairment was not substantially justified.
- Although the spinal-disorder listing issue had a arguably reasonable position, the overall case showed the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred in evaluating Groberg’s mental impairments. | Groberg’s mental impairments were severe and improperly minimized. | Any error at step two was harmless; remaining analysis supported by substantial evidence. | ALJ’s mental impairment analysis was deficient and not harmless. |
| Whether the ALJ properly weighed treating providers’ opinions. | ALJ rejected treating sources without substantial justification while favoring non-treating sources. | ALJ could weigh evidence as he saw fit and select the most persuasive sources. | ALJ’s weight determinations were not substantially justified. |
| Whether the RFC properly reflected Groberg’s mental impairments. | The RFC failed to include or discuss mental limitations affecting understanding, memory, supervision, or tolerance of work stress. | Mental impairments were controlled by medication and did not impose functional limitations. | RFC omission or inadequacy was not harmless; error not substantially justified. |
| Whether Groberg met the spinal disorder listing. | Record contained evidence of nerve/root issues affecting eligibility at Listing 1.04A. | Regulation governing Listing evidence was interpreted reasonably by Commissioner/ALJ. | Spinal disorder listing issue was technical and not clearly resolved; not dispositive to overall substantial justification finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hackett v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 2007) (government bears burden to show substantial justification; EAJA standard)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (U.S. Supreme Court 1988) (substantial justification standard in agency positions)
- Johns v. Astrue, 455 F. App’x 846 (10th Cir. 2011) (harmless error analysis and substantial justification considerations)
- Fleming v. Barnhart, 194 F. App’x 543 (10th Cir. 2006) (harmless error analysis and Commissioner litigation position)
- Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285 (10th Cir. 2012) (limitations of unskilled-work rationale for mental impairments)