Dlugos v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

JOYCE M. D.,1 Case No.: 3:22-cv-00318-BEN-DEB

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR v. ATTORNEY’S FEES KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.

Plaintiff Joyce M. D. filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation which recommended this Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, thereby affirming the decision of the Commissioner. Specifically, the R&R found the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) had sufficiently explained the consistency and supportability factors when evaluating each medical 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), this Order identifies the non-government party by provider’s opinion. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. Ultimately, the Report and Recommendation was only partially adopted and, contrary to Recommendation, the appeal was remanded. Now, Plaintiff requests an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $11,106.58 under the Equal Access to Justice Act }(EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). A prevailing party is not entitled to fees under EAJA if the government’s position defending the case was “substantially justified.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 556, n.2 (1988); Le v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 1200, 1201 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, the Commissioner’s defense concerning the main issue for review ALJ’s evaluation of the medical opinions and prior administrative findings) was substantially justified as evidenced by, inter alia, the fact that the United States Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical opinions and prior administrative findings was supported by substantial evidence. See Lewis v. Barnhart, }/281 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that in determining whether the Commissioner was substantially justified a district court can consider among other things magistrate judge’s recommendation to uphold the ALJ’s decision). This Court’s own review finds that the Commissioner was substantially justified in defense of the Commissioner’s final decision. The United States Magistrate Judge’s exhaustive analysis and agreement with the Commissioner’s conclusion is further evidence that the defense was substantially justified. Therefore, while Plaintiff ultimately prevailed, Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of Attorney’s fees under the EAJA. Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. DATED: August 29, 2024 %6 H ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge