Pace v. Colvin, 2:13-cv-00267

Background

Plaintiff Linda Cummings Pace appealed the denial of Disability Insurance Benefits and SSI; the district court remanded for further consideration after finding errors in the ALJ’s evaluation of medical opinions.
The court concluded the ALJ improperly discounted the opinions of nurse practitioner Ostarcevic and failed to weigh or mention treating physician Dr. Moore’s hearing testimony/opinion.
The court found the ALJ’s summary of an MRI ordered by Ostarcevic was inaccurate and contradicted the MRI’s actual findings, undermining the ALJ’s stated reason for rejecting the nurse practitioner’s opinion.
The court held the omission of Dr. Moore’s opinion was not harmless because the RFC did not incorporate Dr. Moore’s comments and the opinion could have altered the RFC or supported a disability finding.
Plaintiff became the prevailing party under the EAJA and moved for $5,321.82 in attorney’s fees; the Commissioner did not dispute prevailing-party status or amount but argued its position was substantially justified.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commissioner’s position was substantially justified for EAJA fee denial	ALJ erred in evaluating medical opinions (nurse practitioner and Dr. Moore); Commissioner not substantially justified	Government contends its position was reasonable and any ALJ error (esp. re: Dr. Moore) was harmless; overall position substantially justified	Court: Commissioner not substantially justified; EAJA fees awarded
Whether ALJ properly discounted nurse practitioner Ostarcevic’s opinion	Ostarcevic’s MRI and opinion were improperly summarized and rejected without adequate explanation	ALJ discounted because nurse practitioners are “other sources” and claimed Plaintiff had less severe limitations, citing little post-2009 treatment	Court: ALJ’s brief rationale and inaccurate MRI summary precluded meaningful review; error not substantially justified
Whether ALJ properly considered Dr. Moore’s opinion	Dr. Moore’s opinion was not weighed or discussed and could affect RFC/disability determination	Commissioner argues omission was harmless and position was reasonable	Court: Omission was not harmless; failure to weigh/comment prevented meaningful review; Commissioner not substantially justified
Whether requested EAJA fee amount is reasonable and payable	Fee request of $5,321.82 is reasonable and should be paid to Plaintiff (subject to Treasury offset)	Commissioner did not contest amount	Court: Awarded $5,321.82 to Plaintiff, payable to Plaintiff and mailed to counsel (subject to offset)

Key Cases Cited

Gilbert v. Shalala, 45 F.3d 1391 (10th Cir.) (defines substantial-justification test as reasonableness in law and fact)
Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (Supreme Court) (EAJA substantial-justification standard can differ from merits correctness)
Hadden v. Bowen, 851 F.2d 1266 (10th Cir.) (lack of substantial evidence on the merits does not necessarily negate substantial justification)
Taylor v. Heckler, 835 F.2d 1037 (3rd Cir.) (legislative history supports that a merits loss does not automatically defeat government substantial justification)
Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (Supreme Court) (EAJA fees belong to the prevailing party and are subject to Treasury Offset Program)