Dlugos v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 29, 2024
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00318
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOYCE M. D.,1 Case No.: 3:22-cv-00318-BEN-DEB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 v. ATTORNEY’S FEES 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security 15 Administration, 16 Defendant. 17

18 Plaintiff Joyce M. D. filed this action seeking judicial review of the Social Security 19 Commissioner’s denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits. The parties filed 20 cross-motions for summary judgment. The United States Magistrate Judge issued a 21 Report and Recommendation which recommended this Court grant Defendant’s Motion 22 for Summary Judgment, thereby affirming the decision of the Commissioner. 23 Specifically, the R&R found the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) had sufficiently 24 explained the consistency and supportability factors when evaluating each medical 25 26 27 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), this Order identifies the non-government party by 28 1 || provider’s opinion. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation. 2 || Ultimately, the Report and Recommendation was only partially adopted and, contrary to 3 Recommendation, the appeal was remanded. Now, Plaintiff requests an award of 4 || attorney’s fees in the amount of $11,106.58 under the Equal Access to Justice Act 5 |}(EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 6 A prevailing party is not entitled to fees under EAJA if the government’s position 7 defending the case was “substantially justified.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); 8 || Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 556, n.2 (1988); Le v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 1200, 1201 9 || (9th Cir. 2008). Here, the Commissioner’s defense concerning the main issue for review 10 ALJ’s evaluation of the medical opinions and prior administrative findings) was 11 substantially justified as evidenced by, inter alia, the fact that the United States 12 || Magistrate Judge found that the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical opinions and prior 13 administrative findings was supported by substantial evidence. See Lewis v. Barnhart, 14 }/281 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that in determining whether the 15 || Commissioner was substantially justified a district court can consider among other things 16 magistrate judge’s recommendation to uphold the ALJ’s decision). 17 CONCLUSION 18 This Court’s own review finds that the Commissioner was substantially justified in 19 defense of the Commissioner’s final decision. The United States Magistrate Judge’s 20 || exhaustive analysis and agreement with the Commissioner’s conclusion is further 21 || evidence that the defense was substantially justified. Therefore, while Plaintiff ultimately 22 || prevailed, Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of Attorney’s fees under the EAJA. 23 || Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ||DATED: August 29, 2024 %6 H ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge 27 28