Hansen v. Commissioner Social Security Administration, No. 3:2010cv03061 - Document 29 (D. Or. 2011)
Court Description: Opinion and Order - Granting plaintiff's Motion to Allow EAJA Fees and Expenses 25 . The Commissioner, however, shall have ten (10) days from the date this Opinion and Order is entered either to stipulate to or file a motion challenging the reasonableness of the amount of attorneys fee requested byplaintiff. Signed on 11/22/2011 by Judge Malcolm F. Marsh. (See formal Opinion and Order, 3-pages) (ecp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hansen v. Commissioner Social Security Administration Doc. 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON Portland Division DONNA M. HANSEN Plaintiff, 3:l0-CV-306l-MA OPINION AND ORDER v. MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ARTHUR W. STEVENS, III Black, Chapman, Webber & Stevens 221 Stewart Ave., Suite 209 Medford, OR 97501 (541) 371-9636 772-9850 Attorney for Plaintiff DWIGHT C. HOLTON United States Attorney ADRIAN L. BROWN Assistant United States Attorney 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204-2902 (503) 727-1003 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com KATHRYN A. MILLER Special Assistant United States Attorney 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A Seattle, WA 98104-7075 (206) 615-2240 Attorneys for Defendant MARSH, Judge. The matter is before the court on plaintiff's Amended Motion (doc. 25) to Allow EAJA Fees and Expenses in the total amount of $6,919.45, following this court's July 7, 2011, Opinion and Order remanding this case to the Commissioner to obtain further medical evidence as to whether plaintiff suffers from a Somatoform disorder and/or any other mental impairment that, in combination with her other impairments, precludes her from engaging in substantial gainful activity. The Commissioner opposes the motion, arguing that his position in both the administrative proceedings and this litigation was substantially justified. Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a prevailing party is entitled to fees and costs incurred in for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United States . . . unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust." 28 U.S.C. ยง 2412(d) (1) (A). The court concludes the Commissioner was not substantially justified in making a finding that plaintiff was not disabled based in substantial part on the opinions of consulting medical 2 - OPINION AND ORDER practitioners who questioned plaintiff's credibility, while disregarding the opinions of plaintiff's treating medical practitioners as well as two medical practitioners who examined plaintiff on behalf of the Commissioner, recommended further examination, and did not question plaintiff's credibility. For these reasons, the court rejects the Commissioner's argument that plaintiff is not entitled to an award of attorneys fees under the EAJA.' The court, therefore, GRANTS plaintiff's Motion to Allow EAJA Fees and Expenses (doc. 25). The Commissioner, however, shall have ten (10) days from the date this Opinion and Order is entered either to stipulate to or file a motion challenging the reasonableness of the amount of attorneys fee requested by plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 2:1... day of 2011. MALCOLM F. MARSH United States District Judge I The Commissioner asserts he did not have to make a decision whether to stipulate to the the amount of the fees requested by plaintiff required to file a response to the pending fee 3 - OPINION AND ORDER sufficient time reasonableness of before being request.
]]>
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.
