Case Information
*1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION TAMI WINN JONES, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR Plaintiff, ATTORNEY FEES (ECF NO. 32) v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security [1] Case No. 2:15-cv-00516-EJF
Defendant.
Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse
Plaintiff Tami Winn Jones moves the Court [2] for an award of attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (ECF No. 32.) On July
21, 2015, Ms. Winn Jones filed this action asking the Court to reverse and remand the
Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision denying her application for supplemental
security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“Act”). (Compl., ECF No. 3.)
On August 22, 2016, the Court remanded the ALJ’s decision, requesting that the ALJ (1)
provide further analysis regarding Mr. Bagley, Dr. Brown, and Dr. Delcore’s opinions, (2)
explain how the RFC accommodates Ms. Jones’s mental impairments, and (3) explain
his analysis of Ms. Jones’s obesity and ensure that Ms. Jones’s age did not factor into
*2 his RFC determination. (Mem. Dec. & Order (“Order”), ECF No. 30.) The remand
makes Ms. Winn Jones the prevailing party, and the Commissioner does not challenge
the reasonableness of the fee amount requested. Thus the only disputed issue
concerns whether the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified. Because the
Court finds the Commissioner’s position not substantially justified, the Court hereby
ORDERS an award of $6,092.00 in attorney fees to Ms. Winn Jones.
DISCUSSION Under the EAJA, a court must award attorney fees to the prevailing party unless the Court finds the United States’ position substantially justified or special
circumstances make an award of fees unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The
Commissioner’s position is substantially justified if she took a position with a reasonable
basis in both law and fact. Hackett v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 1166, 1172 (10th Cir. 2007);
see also Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). “[A] position can be justified
even though it is not correct, and . . . it can be substantially (i.e., for the most part)
justified if a reasonable person could think it correct.” Pierce, 487 U.S. at 566 n. 2.
“[T] he reasonableness test breaks down into three parts: the government must show
‘that there is a reasonable basis ... for the facts alleged ... , that there exists a
reasonable basis in law for the theory it propounds; and that the facts alleged will
reasonably support the legal theory advanced.’” Gatson v. Bowen, 854 F.2d 379, 380
(10th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. 2,116 Boxes of Boned Beef, 726 F.2d 1481,
1487 (10th Cir. 1984)). The Commissioner bears the burden to prove her position was
substantially justified. Hackett, 475 F.3d at 1172.
*3 The Commissioner contends her position was substantially justified and therefore this Court should not award attorney fees to Ms. Winn Jones. (Def.’s Resp. in Obj. to
Pl.’s Pet. for Atty’s Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“Resp.”) 2, ECF No.
33.) However, because the ALJ committed legal error in considering Ms. Winn Jones’s
age, the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified. In his RFC finding, the
ALJ stated that “while the evidence suggest that functional limitations are warranted
based on shoulder, knee and back impairments, the claimant is still a younger individual
and these limitations do not render her disabled.” (R. 23.) In its remand Order, this
Court held that “the ALJ committed legal error by considering Ms. Jones’s age in making
his RFC determination.” (Order 15, ECF No. 30.) The Court explained that “The ALJ’s
statement here epitomizes what SSR 96 - 8p prohibits, namely an assessment of RFC
based in part on age.” (Order 14 - 15, ECF No. 30.) As SSR 96 - 8p’s title suggests, the
Social Security Administration issued this Ruling in 1996. Because the ALJ committed
patent legal error when he considered Ms. Winn Jones’s age in making his RFC
determination, the ALJ’s decision did not have a reasonable basis in law. Because a
reasonable basis does not support the ALJ’s decision, the Commissioner’s defense of
that position lacked substantial justification. Further, well - established case law sets the
standard for evaluating medical opinions, and the analysis obviously fell short of the
standard. Therefore, the Commissioner’s defense laced substantial justification.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS an award of attorney fees to Ms.
Winn Jones in the amount of $6,092.00 pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The
award shall be made payable to Ms. Winn Jones and mailed to Ms. Winn Jones’s
attorney at the Law Office of Jay Barnes, 1079 E. Riverside Dr., Ste. 203, St. George,
UT 84790.
DATED this 1st day of November 2017.
BY THE COURT: _____________________________ EVELYN J. FURSE United States Magistrate Judge
[1] Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Nancy A. Berryhill should be substituted for Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as the defendant in this suit. No further action needs to be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
[2] The parties consented to proceed before the undersigned Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. (ECF No. 15.)