Decker v. Berryhill, No. 14-35373 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of plaintiff's application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(A), holding that the Commissioner's litigation position was substantially justified. Plaintiff had successfully challenged the Commissioner's denial of her application for disability benefits and obtained a remand of her claim to the agency for further consideration. In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Commissioner's position was substantially justified because the Commissioner's opposition to remand the claim on the merits was reasonable, even though it turned out to be unsuccessful. Finally, plaintiff's new evidence, though sufficient in the end to persuade the district court to remand the case, did not make that the only reasonable result.
Court Description: Equal Access to Justice Act / Attorney Fees. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of plaintiff’s application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) based on the determination that the Commissioner of Social Security’s litigation position was substantially justified. Plaintiff successfully challenged the Commissioner’s denial of plaintiff’s application for disability benefits and obtained a remand of her claim to the agency for further consideration. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified because the Commissioner’s opposition to remand of the claim on the merits was reasonable, even though it turned out to be unsuccessful. The panel noted that plaintiff’s new evidence submitted to the Appeals Council, though sufficient in the end to persuade the district court to remand the case, did not make that the only reasonable result. DECKER V. BERRYHILL 3
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.