Fleming v. Barnhart , 194 F. App'x 543 ( 2006 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
September 7, 2006
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JO H N A . FLEM IN G ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 06-1048
(D.C. No. 04-cv-2048-LTB)
JO A NN E B. BA RN HA RT, (D . Colo.)
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before BARRETT, BROR BY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff John Fleming appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion
for attorney fees under the Equal A ccess to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
W e have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we AFFIRM .
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and
judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
After Fleming’s application for disability insurance benefits was denied, he
requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Fleming was not
represented by counsel at the hearing. The A LJ found that Fleming had severe
bilateral degenerative joint disease (DJD) in his knees, but the ALJ denied relief
on the basis that Fleming retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to
perform his past relevant work and was therefore not disabled. The Appeals
Council denied Fleming’s request for review. Fleming appealed, and the district
court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
The district court found three legal errors in the ALJ’s decision: (1) failure
to make the necessary findings at each of the RFC assessment phases–specifically
the ALJ’s failure to address plaintiff’s functional capacity to stand and walk in an
eight-hour workday; (2) the resulting failure to adequately address Fleming’s
standing/walking limitations in the operative hypothetical presented to the
vocational expert; and (3) the ALJ’s failure in his heightened duty to adequately
develop the record, in light of the fact that plaintiff was not represented by
counsel. Based upon these errors, the district court found that the A LJ’s
assessment of Fleming’s RFC in the fourth step of the five-step analysis was not
grounded in substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4);
Fischer-Ross v. Barnhart, 431 F.3d 729, 731 (10th Cir. 2005) (“The Social
Security Administration employs an oft-repeated five-part sequential evaluation
process for determining whether a claimant is disabled.”).
-2-
Fleming filed a motion for fees under the EA JA. The district court denied
the motion, concluding that, when viewed under a totality of the circumstances,
the C ommissioner’s position was reasonable in fact and law, and therefore
substantially justified.
Under the EAJA, a fee award is required if (1) Fleming is a “prevailing
party”; (2) the position of the United States was not “substantially justified”; and
(3) there are no special circumstances that make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2412(d)(1)(A ). The EAJA explains that the “position of the United States” is
“in addition to the position taken by the United States in the civil action, the
action or failure to act by the agency upon which the civil action is based.”
Id. § 2412(d)(2)(D). The only dispute in this appeal is whether the government’s
position was substantially justified.
The government’s position was substantially justified if it was “justified in
substance or in the main–that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy a
reasonable person.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988) (quotation
omitted). The Supreme Court equated this standard with a reasonable basis both
in law and fact, and the position of the government will be deemed to be
substantially justified if there is a genuine dispute, or if reasonable people could
differ as to the appropriateness of the contested action. Id. M oreover, the
government’s “position can be justified even though it is not correct . . . and it
-3-
can be substantially (i.e., for the most part) justified if a reasonable person could
think it correct . . . .” Id. at 566 n.2.
In opposing Fleming’s motion for fees, the Commissioner contended that
the government’s position prior to the district court’s reversal was substantially
justified. In her brief on the merits, the Commissioner had conceded that the
ALJ’s assessment of RFC was defective. However, she argued that the A LJ’s
failure to make findings on Fleming’s standing/walking capacity was harmless
error in light of the other evidence in the record that she contended supported the
ALJ’s decision. Specifically, the Commissioner pointed to the fact that the ALJ
placed “great weight” on the opinion of a non-treating physician, who concluded
that Flem ing could “sit, stand and walk for an eight-hour workday with
reasonable breaks.” Aplt. App., Vol. 1 at 72 (quotations omitted). As to the
adequacy of the ALJ’s development of the record, the Commissioner argued that
the hearing transcript showed that Fleming had received a full and fair hearing.
In reviewing Fleming’s motion for fees, the district court assessed the
government’s position, as viewed under the totality of the circumstances. See
Comm’r, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 161-62 (1990) (“[T]he EA JA–like other
fee-shifting statutes–favors treating a case as an inclusive whole, rather than as
atomized line-items.”). It noted that the ALJ had reviewed all the evidence in the
record, which “although admittedly conflicting, could have been sufficient to
support the A LJ’s conclusions if [the] functions of standing and walking were
-4-
properly addressed.” Aplt. App., Vol. 1 at 4. The district court characterized the
Commissioner’s position below, including her proper concession of error and her
argument that it was harmless, as not unreasonable in fact or in law under the
circumstances of this case, and therefore substantially justified.
W e review the district court’s decision that the government’s position was
substantially justified for abuse of discretion. Gilbert v. Shalala, 45 F.3d 1391,
1394 (10th Cir. 1995). “A n abuse of discretion occurs when the district court
bases its ruling on an erroneous conclusion of law or relies on clearly erroneous
fact findings,” Kiowa Indian Tribe of Okla. v. Hoover, 150 F.3d 1163, 1165
(10th Cir. 1998), or when the district court’s decision is “arbitrary, capricious or
whimsical, or results in a manifestly unreasonable judgment,” M oothart v. Bell,
21 F.3d 1499, 1504-05 (10th Cir. 1994) (quotations omitted). This court “must
carefully scrutinize the district court’s exercise of its discretion, but we may not
. . . substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court.” Kiowa Indian Tribe,
150 F.3d at 1165 (quotation omitted) (alteration in original).
Fleming argues that the district court improperly applied the legal standard
for EAJA fees. He contends that the district court’s reasoning in finding
substantial justification based upon the government’s harmless error argument
amounts to a post hoc justification of the ALJ’s decision. W e disagree. W ith this
argument, plaintiff conflates the merits analysis of whether the government’s
legal position was wrong–which is not in dispute–with the determination whether
-5-
its position was substantially justified. Fleming’s approach to assessing
substantial justification applies twenty-twenty hindsight, rather than examining
the government’s position as it w as litigated. See Pierce, 487 U.S. at 566 n.2.
(noting that government’s “position can be justified even though it is not
correct”); Gonzales v. Free Speech Coalition, 408 F.3d 613, 620 (9th Cir. 2005)
(observing importance of avoiding hindsight in assessing government’s position).
The district court did not make legally inconsistent findings regarding
substantial evidence, as the plaintiff contends. On the merits, the district court
considered whether there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision
and found that there was not. In subsequently deciding Fleming’s fee motion, the
court assessed whether it was reasonable in law and in fact for the Commissioner
to argue there was substantial evidence. See Fulton v. Heckler, 784 F.2d 348, 349
(10th Cir. 1986). In reversing and remanding on the merits, the district court
declined the Commissioner’s invitation, under a harmless error analysis, to supply
the missing RFC findings regarding standing and walking. However, in denying
Fleming’s fee motion, the district court held it was not unreasonable for the
Commissioner to concede the ALJ’s error, yet argue it was harmless, even though
that position did not ultimately carry the day. The district court found the
government’s position to be substantially justified in this case, not because the
error was harmless, but because it was not unreasonable under the circumstances
of this case to argue that it was harmless.
-6-
Based on our review of the record and given our deferential standard of
review, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion. It
appropriately considered whether the government’s position was reasonable in
law and fact, under circumstances as to which reasonable minds could differ. See
Pierce, 487 U.S. at 565. W e do not find that the district court was arbitrary,
capricious or exercised manifestly unreasonable judgment in reaching its
conclusion that the government’s position was substantially justified. See
M oothart, 21 F.3d at 1504-05. Because w e do not have a definite and firm
conviction that the lower court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the
bounds of permissible choice, the trial court’s decision will not be disturbed. See
id. at 1504.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
W ade Brorby
Circuit Judge
-7-