Lopez v. Berryhill, 690 F. App'x 613

Lopez applied in 2009 for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income; the SSA denied his application.
The district court affirmed the denial; Lopez appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
This Court reversed and remanded for further analysis of a treating physician’s and a consultative examiner’s opinions (Lopez v. Colvin).
Lopez then sought attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), requesting $12,218.00.
The Commissioner opposed the EAJA application and bore the burden to show the government’s position was substantially justified.
The district court found the government’s position substantially justified and denied fees; Lopez appealed that denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Commissioner’s litigation position was "substantially justified" under EAJA, warranting denial of attorney fees	Lopez argued the government’s position lacked substantial justification because this Court reversed the denial of benefits and remanded for further analysis	The Commissioner argued its position was reasonable in law and fact and thus substantially justified even if ultimately incorrect	The district court did not abuse its discretion: the government’s position, taken as a whole, was substantially justified; denial of EAJA fees affirmed

Hadden v. Bowen, 851 F.2d 1266 (10th Cir. 1988) (government bears burden to show substantial justification when opposing EAJA fees)
Hackett v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 2007) (definition of "substantially justified" as reasonable in law and fact)
Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1988) (the government’s position can be justified even if incorrect)
Madron v. Astrue, 646 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for EAJA denials and distinction between merits review and EAJA substantial-justification inquiry)