Jill Campbell v. Michael Astrue
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23732
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Campbell applied for Social Security disability benefits; issue focused on whether she was disabled by her last insured date, June 30, 1996.
- Medical record gap: ALJ had records from 1989 and 2000 but no contemporaneous 1996 records; claimant had been diagnosed with MS in 1989 and reported progressive symptoms and frequent exacerbations in 1995–1996.
- ALJ rejected Campbell’s testimony and treating/examining physicians’ opinions, giving weight to a state non-treating doctor who could not pinpoint when disability began.
- Ninth Circuit reversed the ALJ for lacking substantial evidence to reject claimant’s testimony and medical opinions, concluding the ALJ should have credited her.
- Campbell moved for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA); majority denied fees (but granted $805 in filing costs), dissent would have awarded fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EAJA fees must be awarded to prevailing claimant | EAJA requires fees unless government shows both its litigation position and underlying agency action were substantially justified; here agency decision lacked substantial evidence so fees should be awarded | Government contends its position was substantially justified because ALJ had to extrapolate from non‑contemporaneous records to a past date and reasonable doubt existed | Denied: court held government’s position was substantially justified given need to extrapolate to a past date from sparse evidence, so EAJA fees not warranted |
| Whether agency decision was unsupported by substantial evidence | Campbell: ALJ improperly rejected testimony and treating opinions without clear and convincing reasons | Government: record gaps and circumstantial evidence (work/care for children) justified ALJ’s doubts | Court reversed ALJ on substantial‑evidence grounds (ALJ erred), but found this alone did not mandate EAJA fees here |
| Whether Meier v. Colvin requires fee award | Campbell: Meier shows reversal for lack of substantial evidence is strong indication EAJA fees are owed | Government: Meier involved present disability; here issue was past disability requiring extrapolation, so Meier is distinguishable | Court: distinguished Meier—present vs. past disability—and declined to treat every reversal as automatic EAJA entitlement |
| Whether lack of contemporaneous records (1996) affects justification | Campbell: lack of records due to inability to pay should not justify denying fees; testimony and doctors supported disability as of 1996 | Government: absence of 1996 records and evidence of functionality justify ALJ’s inference and litigation position | Court sided with government: extrapolation from other-year records made government’s position substantially justified despite reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2005) (reversal for lack of substantial evidence usually indicates government position not substantially justified under EAJA)
- Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2013) (agency decision reversed for failing to give specific, legitimate reasons to reject treating physician; discussed EAJA entitlement)
- Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 1996) (when no malingering and no clear and convincing contrary evidence, claimant’s testimony must be credited)
- Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401 (2004) (Congress enacted EAJA to reduce barriers to vindicating rights against the government)
- Al‑Harbi v. INS, 284 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002) (EAJA denial appropriate where government’s central positions were upheld despite reversal on some issues)