Cassandra H. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

1

CASSANDRA H., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

No. 6:20-CV-6776-EAW

United States District Court, W.D. New York

April 18, 2023

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD Chief Judge

INTRODUCTION

Represented by counsel, Plaintiff Cassandra H. (“Plaintiff”) brought this action pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act (the “Act”), seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying her application for social security income benefits (“SSI”). (Dkt. 1). On November 17, 2022, the Court remanded the matter for further proceedings. (Dkt. 19).

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees in the amount of $7,264.46 that she is seeking pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). (Dkt. 21). The Commissioner opposes the motion. (Dkt. 22). For the reasons that follow the Court grants Plaintiff's motion in part.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff protectively filed her application for SSI on June 12, 2017 alleging disability beginning on June 28, 2016. (Dkt. 11 at 107, 178-83). Plaintiff's application was initially denied on November 16, 2017. (Id. at 96-06). At Plaintiff's request, a hearing was held before administrative law judge (“ALJ”) John P. Ramos on July 30, 2019.

(Id. at 38-58). On August 30, 2019, the ALJ issued an unfavorable decision. (Id. at 19-32). Plaintiff then requested review by the Appeals Council, which the Council denied on August 4, 2020, making the ALJ's determination the final decision of the Commissioner. (Id. at 5-9). This action followed. (Dkt. 1).

On September 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 13), which the Commissioner opposed by filing a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings on January 31, 2022 (Dkt. 15). On November 17, 2022, the Court issued a Decision and Order remanding the matter for further proceedings. (Dkt. 19).

Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorney's fees on February 15, 2023. (Dkt. 21). The Commissioner filed a response objecting to the relief sought and arguing that Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney's fees under the EAJA because the Commissioner's position in the instant action was substantially justified. (Dkt. 22).

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

As the Second Circuit has explained:

The [EAJA] provides that “a court shall award to a prevailing party . . . fees and other expenses . . . incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort), including proceedings 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.”

Vincent v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 651 F.3d 299, 302-03 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(A)). “Thus, under the EAJA, eligibility for a fee award in any civil action requires: (1) that the claimant be a prevailing party; (2) that the Government's position was not substantially justified; [and] (3) that no special circumstances make an award unjust.” Gomez-Beleno v. Holder, 644 F.3d 139, 144 (2d Cir. 2011) (citation and quotations omitted).

II. Plaintiff is Entitled to a Fee Award

The Commissioner does not dispute that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action, nor does the Commissioner contend that special circumstances would make an award of attorney's fees unjust. (Dkt. 22). Rather, the Commissioner argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney's fees because the Commissioner's position in opposing Plaintiff's claim was substantially justified. (Id. at 5-14). Specifically, the Commissioner argues that the ALJ had a reasonable basis in law and fact to arrive at the opinion that Plaintiff's moderate limitations identified by Dr. Isihos were consistent with sedentary work, and to make his RFC finding implicitly as long as the reviewing court was able to fathom the ALJ's reasoning. (Id. at 7-10). The Court disagrees for the following reasons.

As a general matter, the Court can award attorney's fees under the EAJA only if the government's position was not substantially justified. The government “bears the burden of showing that [its] position was ‘substantially justified,' which the Supreme Court has construed to mean ‘justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.'” Ericksson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 557 F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988)); see also Cohen v. Bowen, 837 F.2d 582, 586 (2d Cir. 1988) (“This circuit has repeatedly interpreted the ‘substantially justified” standard to be essentially a standard of reasonableness.”). In other words, a position is substantially justified “if a reasonable person could think it correct, that is, if it has a reasonable basis in law and fact.” Pierce, 487 U.S. at 565 n.2. “When assessing the ‘position of the United States,' [the Court] reviews both ‘the position taken by the United States in the civil action, [and] the action or failure to act by the agency upon which the civil action is based.'” Ericksson, 557 F.3d at 82 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(D)). The Second Circuit has expressly instructed that, in assessing the reasonableness of the government's position, “a court should not perform separate evaluations of the Government's position at each stage of the proceedings.” United States v. $19,047.00 in U.S. Currency, 95 F.3d 248, 251 (2d Cir. 1996). Instead, “only one threshold determination for the entire civil action is to be made.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Comm'r, I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 159 (1990) (“Subsection (d)(1)(A) refers to an award of fees ‘in any civil action' without any reference to separate parts of the litigation, such as discovery requests, fees, or appeals. The reference to ‘the position of the United States' in the singular also suggests that the court need make only one finding about the justification of that position.”). A district court's determination of whether the government's position was substantially justified is reviewable “only for an abuse of discretion.” Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Dunn, 169 F.3d 785, 786 (2d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).

In support of her argument on appeal, Plaintiff relied on the ALJ's evaluation of the opinion of consultative examiner Dr. Isihos, who found Plaintiff to have moderate restrictions for prolonged sitting, standing, walking, climbing, heavy lifting, squatting, and kneeling. (Dkt. 13-1 at 10-14). Having evaluated Dr. Isihos's opinion, the ALJ found it to have some persuasive value because the examiner's findings of Plaintiff's moderate restrictions for prolonged sitting, standing, walking, and heavy lifting were supported by the record and consistent with Plaintiff's ability to work at the sedentary level. (Dkt. 11 at 30). Following its review, this Court agreed with the ALJ's evaluation of Dr. Isihos's opinion that the record did, in fact, support the examiner's findings of Plaintiff's moderate limitations, but found the ALJ's reliance on the consultative opinion insufficient to justify his ultimate RFC conclusion that Plaintiff was capable of sedentary work because the ALJ's analysis did not take into account ample evidence suggesting that Plaintiff was incapable of prolonged sitting as well as prolonged standing and walking that are required for sedentary work. (Dkt. 19 at 6-11). The Court also found the ALJ's analysis erroneous because he failed to address Plaintiff's need to alternate positions to alleviate pain and to evaluate to what degree such need could erode the occupational base for unskilled sedentary work. (Id. at 11-13).

The Commissioner argues that the ALJ's position in analyzing Dr. Isihos's opinion was justified not only because the ALJ relied on the well-recognized principle that moderate limitations are not necessarily work-preclusive, which the Court agreed with, but also because the ALJ's errors amounted to the issues of “insufficient articulation,” and, as such, the ALJ's “insufficiently nuanced” interpretation of Dr. Isihos's opinion fell within the “soft, hazy boundaries of the substantial evidence inquiry” and did not render the ALJ's analysis unreasonable for purposes of the attorney's fee analysis. (Dkt. 22 at 8-12).

The Court disagrees with the Commissioner's oversimplistic explanation of the Court's decision to remand the matter for further proceedings because it does not take into account all of the reasons why this Court found the ALJ's analysis erroneous. While the Court did not disagree with the ALJ's analysis of Dr. Isihos's findings that were consistent with the record, and while it recognized that moderate limitations are not inherently inconsistent with the finding of sedentary work, these facts alone are insufficient to establish that the Commissioner's position was substantially justified. See Travis L. v. Saul, No. 3:19-CV-663 (CFH), 2021 WL 2580101, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. June 23, 2021) (the “overarching points of settled law does not require a conclusion that the Commissioner's position was substantially justified” even when the court agreed with the ALJ's analysis of a medical opinion and noted that the ALJ was not required to accept the entirety of a medical opinion); Ortiz v. Chater, No. 95 CV 3126 ERK, 1997 WL 50217, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 1997) (“[T]he fact that there is some evidence in the record that supports an ALJ's decision will not necessarily lead to a finding that the Commissioner's position was substantially justified.”).

Although the Court recognizes that in certain circumstances an ALJ's failure to adequately explain his or her findings “does not establish that the denial of benefits lacked...