Salena Glenn v. Comm'r of Social Security
763 F.3d 494
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Glenn suffered multiple impairments from a 2007 car accident, including degenerative spine disease, head injury, depression, and hidradenitis suppurativa, affecting her functioning.
- She filed for benefits in 2008 alleging disability since March 28, 2007; the ALJ denied benefits at step five in 2010 without counsel present at the hearing.
- The Appeals Council declined review; Glenn sought district-court review and counsel was obtained.
- A magistrate judge issued an R&R finding five errors in the ALJ’s reasoning, each independently warranting remand.
- In 2013 the district court reversed and remanded to the ALJ for further review based on those errors.
- Glenn sought EAJA attorney’s fees for pursuing district-court review; the district court denied fees on the basis of substantial justification for the government’s position, which Glenn challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in denying EAJA fees | Glenn prevailed and the government’s position was not substantially justified | District court correctly found substantial justification because some errors were not meritorious | District court abused discretion; fees must be awarded on remand |
| Whether the government’s position was substantially justified given five reversible errors | The five errors show the ALJ’s analysis was flawed and the government cannot justify defending it | Position could be substantially justified despite remand in narrow circumstances | Government failed to prove substantial justification; remand fees warranted |
| Whether remand based on multiple errors supports fee entitlement | Remand was required due to a string of errors that affected the disability determination | Remand could occur for inadequate explanation without negating substantial justification | String of errors undermines substantial justification; fees awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988) (substantial-justification standard requires reasonable basis in law and fact)
- DeLong v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 748 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2014) (abuse of discretion review for EAJA determinations; remand does not prove lack of substantial justification)
- Shalala v. Shaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993) (prevailing-party status for EAJA; fee entitlement depends on substantial justification)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988) (substantial-justification standard applied to government positions in litigation)
- INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (1990) (government posture considered as an inclusive whole in substantial-justification analysis)
- Gentry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 2014) (requirement to consider all evidence; reversal for improper evaluation of disability)