Eila Ramirez v. Carolyn W Colvin, No. 2:2012cv05308 - Document 24 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER by Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block: granting 19 Motion for Attorney Fees in the amount of $4,313.08. See order for more information. (twdb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 O 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 EILA RAMIREZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Case No. CV 12-5308 RNB MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING PLAINTIFF S PETITION FOR EAJA FEES; AND ORDER THEREON Now pending before the Court and ready for decision is plaintiff s Petition for 18 Attorney Fees and Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act ( EAJA ). 19 In its Opposition ( Opp. ) to plaintiff s fee petition, the Government does not 20 contend that the petition was untimely, challenge plaintiff s status as a prevailing 21 party, or contend that the fees should be reduced because the requested amount is 22 unreasonable. Instead, the Government contends that plaintiff s fee petition should 23 be denied in its entirety because the Commissioner s position was substantially 24 justified. (See Opp. at 3-11.) Alternatively, the Government contends, if EAJA fees 25 are to be awarded, they must be paid to plaintiff, not his attorney, under the Supreme 26 Court s decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, - U.S. -, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 2525, 177 L. Ed. 2d 27 91 (2010). (See Opp. at 11-13.) 28 1 1 2 DISCUSSION The EAJA provides in pertinent part: 3 Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall 4 award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other 5 expenses . . . incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases 6 sounding in tort), including proceedings for judicial review of agency 7 action, brought by or against the United States in any court having 8 jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the 9 United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances 10 make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). 11 12 The term position of the United States is not limited to the legal position of 13 the Government during litigation, but rather includes the action or failure to act by 14 the agency upon which the civil action is based. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(D); 15 Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1259 (9th Cir. 2001); Andrew v. Bowen, 837 16 F.2d 875, 878 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, the burden here is on the Government to 17 establish that it was substantially justified on the whole, considering both the 18 underlying administrative decision of the ALJ and the Commissioner s litigation 19 position in defending the ALJ s decision. See Gutierrez, 274 F.3d at 1259; Kali v. 20 Bowen, 854 F.2d 329, 332 (9th Cir. 1988). However, the Ninth Circuit also has 21 observed that [i]t is difficult to imagine any circumstance in which the government s 22 decision to defend its actions in court would be substantially justified, but the 23 underlying administrative decision would not. See Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 24 570 n.11 (9th Cir. 1995). 25 In Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565, 108 S. Ct. 2541, 181 L. Ed. 2d 490 26 (1988), the Supreme Court held that the statutory phrase substantially justified does 27 not mean justified to a high degree. Rather, it means justified in substance or in 28 the main, or in other words justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable 2 1 person. The Supreme Court further held that this interpretation of the phrase was 2 equivalent to the formula adopted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, i.e., a 3 reasonable basis both in law and fact. There is no presumption that the 4 Government s position was not substantially justified merely because it lost the case. 5 See United States v. Marolf, 277 F.3d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir. 2002); Kali, 854 F.2d at 6 334. Under the reasonableness standard approved by the Supreme Court in Pierce, 7 the Ninth Circuit has found the Commissioner s position substantially justified even 8 where, for example, an ALJ badly mischaracterized evidence and ignored . . . clear 9 direct evidence that the claimant s past work required more than her residual 10 functional capacity limitations would allow her to do. See Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 11 F.3d 1081, 1083-84 (9th Cir. 2002). 12 Here, in plaintiff s underlying case, which included a total of six disputed 13 issues, the Court was unable to affirm the ALJ s decision with respect to Disputed 14 Issue Nos. 1-4: (1) whether the ALJ properly evaluated all the medical opinions in the 15 record; (2) whether the ALJ properly determined plaintiff s residual functional 16 capacity; (3) whether the ALJ made a proper adverse credibility determination with 17 respect to plaintiff s son; and (4) whether the ALJ made a proper adverse credibility 18 determination with respect to plaintiff. With respect to Disputed Issue Nos. 5-6, the 19 Court (5) agreed with the Government that the ALJ properly rejected the opinion of 20 plaintiff s treating physician; and (6) determined that it was unnecessary to reach the 21 issue of whether the ALJ posed a proper hypothetical question to the vocational 22 expert, in light of the Court s resolution of the other issues. 23 24 A. The Government s position was not substantially justified. 25 The Government contends that its position was substantially justified, even 26 with respect to Disputed Issue Nos. 1-4. For the reasons discussed hereafter, the 27 Court disagrees. 28 // 3 1 Disputed Issue No. 11 2 The ALJ s failure to properly evaluate all of the medical evidence in the record, 3 particularly the opinion of Dr. Angerman, contravened the Commissioner s own 4 regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) ( Regardless of its source, we will evaluate 5 every medical opinion we receive. ). It follows that the Government s position with 6 respect to this issue was not substantially justified. See Shafer v. Astrue, 518 F.3d 7 1067, 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008) (government s position was not substantially 8 justified where ALJ contravened SSA regulations by disregarding, without 9 explanation, a medical expert s opinion); see also Gutierrez, 274 F.3d at 1259 10 (government s position was not substantially justified where ALJ s decision reflected 11 failure to follow SSA regulations); Yang v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 213, 217 (9th Cir. 1994) 12 (same). 13 The Government contends that its position was substantially justified by merely 14 repeating its litigation position that such evidence was not significant and probative 15 (see Opp. at 4-5), a position that the Court squarely rejected in its Order reversing the 16 ALJ s decision (see Order at 6). Accordingly, the Court declines to find that there 17 was a reasonable basis both in law and fact for the ALJ to have disregarded the 18 evidence. See Flores, 49 F.3d at 570-71 (government s position was not substantially 19 justified where ALJ failed to consider, without explanation, report that was 20 significant and probative to claim of disability). 21 // 22 23 1 24 25 26 27 28 Preliminarily, the Government points out that the Court overlooked its position with respect to the ALJ s evaluation of the opinion of Dr. Marshak. (See Opp. at 4.) However, even assuming arguendo that the Court had found that the ALJ properly evaluated the opinion of Dr. Marshak, this would not have changed the Court s ultimate finding in Disputed Issue No. 1 that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical evidence. Nor would such finding have rendered the Government s position with respect to this disputed issue substantially justified. 4 1 The Court therefore finds that the Government s position with respect to 2 Disputed Issue No. 1 was not substantially justified. 3 4 Disputed Issue No. 2 5 It follows from the ALJ s failure to properly evaluate all of the medical 6 evidence in the record that the ALJ erred in determining plaintiff s residual functional 7 capacity ( RFC ). Accordingly, the Court also finds that the Government s position 8 with respect to Disputed Issue No. 2 was not substantially justified. See Shafer, 518 9 F.3d at 1070, 1072 (government s position was not substantially justified where ALJ 10 erred in assessing claimant s RFC by failing to properly assess the medical evidence). 11 12 Disputed Issue No. 4 13 The ALJ s adverse credibility determination with respect to plaintiff was not 14 based on clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence. (See Order 15 at 8-11.) Recently, the Ninth Circuit held that in similar circumstances that the 16 Government s position was not substantially justified. See Meier v. Colvin, - F.3d. 17 2013 WL 3802382, at *3 (9th Cir. July 23, 2013) (government s position was not 18 substantially justified where ALJ s adverse credibility determination with respect to 19 claimant was not based on clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial 20 evidence). The Court likewise finds that the Government s position with respect to 21 Disputed Issue No. 4 was not substantially justified, especially since the ALJ s 22 adverse credibility determination relied in part on a characterization of the record that 23 was not entirely accurate. (See Order at 11.) 24 25 Disputed Issue No. 3 26 The ALJ s failure to address the testimony of plaintiff s son, David Ramirez, 27 contravened the Commissioner s own regulations. See 20 C.F.R. 404.1513(d)(4) 28 (noting that the Commissioner will consider evidence from non-medical sources (for 5 1 example, spouses, parents and other caregivers, siblings, other relatives, friends, 2 neighbors, and clergy). ). It follows that the Government s position with respect to 3 this disputed issue was not substantially justified. See Gutierrez, 274 F.3d at 1259; 4 Yang, 22 F.3d at 217. 5 The Government contends that the ALJ s failure to consider Mr. Ramirez s 6 testimony was harmless error by merely repeating its litigation position that Mr. 7 Ramirez s testimony mirrored plaintiff s testimony, which the ALJ properly rejected 8 (see Opp. at 10-11), a position that the Court squarely rejected. (See Order at 11-12.) 9 Accordingly, the Court declines to find that there was a reasonable basis both in law 10 and fact for the ALJ to have disregarded Mr. Ramirez s testimony. 11 Moreover, to the extent that the Government now contends that its position was 12 substantially justified because the Court s application of the harmless error test of 13 Stout v. Commissioner, Social Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006), was out 14 of context (see Opp. at 11), the Court disagrees.2 Specifically, the Government 15 points to a statement by the Ninth Circuit, in Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1117 16 (9th Cir. 2012), that a claimant s interpretation of Stout was out of context because 17 it required a finding that an ALJ s failure to expressly reject a lay witness s testimony 18 was per se prejudicial; rather, the Ninth Circuit observed that such an error would be 19 harmless where, for example, the ALJ had properly rejected the similar testimony of 20 nine other lay witnesses. Here, by way of contrast, the Court did not find that the 21 ALJ s failure to properly consider Mr. Ramirez s testimony was per se prejudicial; 22 rather, the Court found that the ALJ had failed to properly reject any testimony that 23 was similar to that of Mr. Ramirez. (See Order at 11-12.) 24 25 2 In Stout, 454 F.3d at 1056, the Ninth Circuit held that where the ALJ s 26 error lies in a failure to properly discuss competent lay testimony favorable to the claimant, a reviewing court cannot consider the error harmless unless it can 27 confidently conclude that no reasonable ALJ, when fully crediting the testimony, 28 could have reached a different disability determination. 6 1 The Court therefore finds that the Government s position with respect to 2 Disputed Issue No. 3 was not substantially justified. See Sampson v. Chater, 103 3 F.3d 918, 922 (9th Cir. 1996) (government s position was not substantially justified 4 where ALJ failed to adequately account for testimony of claimant s mother). 5 6 Conclusion 7 The fact that the Court agreed with the Government s position with respect to 8 Disputed Issue No. 5 and found it unnecessary to decide Disputed Issue No. 6 is not 9 sufficient to render the Government s position substantially justified on the whole. 10 See Hackett v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 1166, 1174 n.1 (10th Cir. 2007) (EAJA award was 11 not precluded even though Commissioner prevailed on 5 of 6 issues in district court). 12 The Court finds that it was not. 13 14 B. The EAJA award, less any offset to which the Government legally is 15 entitled, should be paid directly to plaintiff s counsel. 16 The Supreme Court has held that an EAJA award is payable to the litigant, as 17 opposed to the litigant s attorney, and is therefore subject to a Government offset to 18 satisfy a pre-existing debt that the litigant owes the United States. See Ratliff, 130 19 S. Ct. at 2522. Accordingly, the Government requests that, if any EAJA fees are 20 awarded, the Court order the fees paid to plaintiff, notwithstanding plaintiff s 21 assignment of any such fees awarded to his counsel. (See Opp. at 11-12.) The 22 Government does not contest the validity of the assignment contained in the fee 23 agreement between plaintiff and his counsel here, but proposes the following 24 approach: 25 [I]f the Court orders EAJA fees, the Court [should] specify that 26 payment is to Plaintiff. If and when Plaintiff is awarded EAJA fees, the 27 United States Department of the Treasure will determine whether 28 Plaintiff owes a government debt and take appropriate action according 7 1 to its own statutes and regulations, as permitted by Ratliff. 2 3 In other post-Ratliff cases before this Court in which the parties have stipulated 4 to the foregoing approach, the Court has gone along with it. However, the Court does 5 not construe Ratliff as mandating this approach, or as precluding the Court from 6 recognizing a valid assignment of EAJA fees. Rather, the Court construes Ratliff as 7 standing simply for the proposition that, since EAJA fees are payable in the first 8 instance to the plaintiff, they are subject to a Government offset to satisfy any 9 pre-existing debt that the litigant owes the United States. However, subject to such 10 offset (if any), plaintiff s counsel is entitled to direct payment of the EAJA award if 11 there has been a valid assignment. The Court notes that its view that Ratliff does not 12 preclude direct payment to plaintiff s counsel is consistent with a number of post13 Ratliff decisions. See, e.g., Coffey v. Astrue, 2013 WL 120030, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14 8, 2013) (directing that attorney s fees, subject to any debt offset, be paid directly to 15 plaintiff s counsel); Palomares v. Astrue, 2012 WL 6599552, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16 18, 2012) (same); Castaneda v. Astrue, 2010 WL 2850778, at *2-*3 (C.D. Cal. July 17 20, 2010) ( The Court concludes that in light of the assignment, the amount awarded 18 herein, subject to any legitimate offset, should be paid directly to Plaintiff's 19 counsel. ); Booker v. Astrue, 2010 WL 2771875, at *3 (S.D. Ind. July 13, 2010) 20 (ordering payment of EAJA award directly to plaintiff s counsel); Martin v. Astrue, 21 2010 WL 2639566, at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 29, 2010) (same); see also Watson v. 22 Astrue, 2010 WL 2903955, at *1 (W.D. La. July 19, 2010) (ordering that the EAJA 23 fees be made payable to both plaintiff and counsel). 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 8 1 2 ORDER IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: (1) plaintiff s EAJA Petition 3 is granted; (2) plaintiff is awarded EAJA fees in the amount of $4,313.08, and costs 4 in the amount of $350; and (3) the Commissioner shall pay such EAJA fees, subject 5 to any offset to which the Government legally is entitled, directly to plaintiff s 6 counsel. 7 8 DATED: August 6, 2013 9 10 11 ROBERT N. BLOCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
