Kim Decker v. Nancy Berryhill
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8212
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Decker applied for Social Security disability benefits; an ALJ denied benefits finding she could perform light work and that jobs existed she could do.
- Decker submitted new blood-test results to the Appeals Council after the ALJ decision; the Council incorporated the test printouts into the record but denied review.
- Decker sued in district court; the magistrate judge and district court concluded the new test results could change the disability finding and remanded to the ALJ for further proceedings.
- Decker then sought attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). A magistrate judge recommended fees, but the district court denied them, finding the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified.
- Decker appealed the denial of EAJA fees. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the Commissioner’s opposition to remand was reasonable given the raw lab data lacked physician interpretation and did not make remand a foregone conclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commissioner’s position in opposing remand was "substantially justified" under the EAJA | Decker argued the Appeals Council’s added lab results required remand and the Commissioner lacked substantial justification to oppose remand, so she is entitled to EAJA fees | Commissioner argued the new evidence (raw lab values) did not clearly undermine the ALJ’s decision and opposing remand was reasonable | Held: Commissioner’s position was substantially justified; district court did not abuse discretion in denying EAJA fees |
| Whether a district court may review a magistrate judge’s F&R absent objections | Decker implied district court improperly reviewed the F&R without objections | Government noted district court may review F&Rs de novo even without objections under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Thomas v. Arn | Held: District court permissibly reviewed the F&R de novo; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Brewes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 682 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2012) (when Appeals Council considers new evidence, that evidence becomes part of the administrative record for substantial-evidence review)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1988) (definition and standards for "substantially justified" under EAJA)
- Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2013) (EAJA review standard and abuse-of-discretion review of fee denials)
- Campbell v. Astrue, 736 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2013) (reversal of ALJ does not automatically entitle claimant to EAJA fees; court must assess substantial justification)
- Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2005) (EAJA fee awards are unusual even when agency decision is reversed)