Marrita Trujillo v. Nancy Berryhill
700 F. App'x 764
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Marrita Trujillo sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Title II disability insurance benefits; the district court reversed and remanded.
- Trujillo moved for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA); the district court denied the fee award.
- The central factual/legal dispute concerned whether an RFC limiting a claimant to "one- or two-step instructions" conflicts with Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) Reasoning Level 2 jobs.
- The ALJ relied on vocational expert testimony that Trujillo could perform Reasoning Level 2 jobs despite the RFC language; no binding precedent then required finding a conflict.
- The district court found both the agency’s underlying decision and the government’s litigation position were "substantially justified" and therefore denied EAJA fees.
- Trujillo appealed the denial of EAJA fees; the Ninth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government’s agency action was substantially justified | The DOT phrase "one- or two-step instructions" makes Reasoning Level 2 inherently inconsistent with the RFC, so agency action lacked justification | DOT reasoning levels do not directly map to SSA functional limitations; reasonable people could disagree and no controlling precedent existed | The agency action was substantially justified because the conflict was not obvious and reasonable authorities disagreed |
| Whether the government’s litigation position was substantially justified | Success on the merits (district court reversal) indicates government not substantially justified | Litigation position was supported by lack of controlling precedent and split district court authority | The litigation position was substantially justified given inconsistent precedents and reasonable legal dispute |
| Whether EAJA fees must be awarded because claimant prevailed on merits | Prevailing party entitlement under EAJA | EAJA bars fees only if the government’s position was substantially justified | EAJA fees denied because government met burden to show substantial justification |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying EAJA fees | District court misapplied legal standard or reached implausible conclusion | District court applied correct standard and relied on appropriate factors | No abuse of discretion; Ninth Circuit affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Decker v. Berryhill, 856 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing EAJA fee denials and substantial-justification analysis)
- Gardner v. Berryhill, 856 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 2017) (government must show substantial justification for both agency action and litigation position)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988) (definition of "substantially justified" and framework for EAJA)
- Kali v. Bowen, 854 F.2d 329 (9th Cir. 1988) (precedent consistency is relevant to substantial-justification inquiry)