Jeffrey Meier v. Carolyn W. Colvin
727 F.3d 867
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Meier sought EAJA fees after the Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of benefits and remanded for benefits.
- District court denied EAJA fees and costs with a brief statement that the government's position was substantially justified.
- Meier’s earlier appeal held the ALJ erred by not citing substantial evidence to reject treating physician Margaris and to credit Meier’s pain testimony.
- The district court’s denial focused on the number of prior unfavorable rulings rather than the merits of the underlying agency action.
- This court held the government’s underlying agency action was not substantially justified and reversed for an award of fees and costs.
- The court addressed that the ALJ’s decision constitutes the agency action for EAJA purposes and remanded
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the underlying agency action was substantially justified. | Meier argues ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. | Colvin contends the underlying action was substantially justified. | Underlying agency action not substantially justified. |
| Whether the government’s litigation position was substantially justified. | Meier asserts the government’s defense of the ALJ’s errors was unjustified. | Colvin maintains defense was substantially justified. | Government’s litigation position not substantially justified (though court need not decide if underlying action was not). |
Key Cases Cited
- Sampson v. Chater, 103 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 1996) (EAJA standard and standard of review for fee awards)
- Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2001) (substantial justification burden on government)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1988) (substantial justification defined as justified in law and fact)
- Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2005) (extends substantial justification to agency decision in immigration context)
- Hardisty v. Astrue, 592 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2010) (EAJA analysis includes agency action and litigation position)
- Al-Harbi v. INS, 284 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002) (agency action under EAJA substantial justification)
- Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence standard analogous to substantial justification)
- Shafer v. Astrue, 518 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2008) (requires substantial justification at all stages of proceedings)
- Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1990) (Congressional intent to provide fees when agency action unjustified)