Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
KATHRYN L. JOHNS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, in his
capacity as Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
No. 11-4099
(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-00104-BCW)
(D. Utah)
Defendant-Appellee.
Before OBRIEN and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Kathryn Johns appeals the district courts denial of her motion for
attorneys fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(A)
(EAJA), which followed the courts remand to the Commissioner of Ms. Johnss
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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
is probable that on remand the end result will be the same, the district court held
that Drapeau was controlling. Aplt. App. at 27. Accordingly, it remanded
Ms. Johnss claims for further proceedings before the Commissioner.
Ms. Johns then moved for fees under the EAJA. In response, the
government argued that an EAJA fee award was inappropriate because the
governments harmless-error position was substantially justified. The district
court concluded that it was reasonable for the government to advocate for
applying the harmless-error doctrine because (1) the court had already
acknowledged that the argument had a certain allure to it given the evidence in
the record supporting the ALJs decision, id. at 33; and (2) the harmless-error
doctrine has been applied in Social Security cases, and the state of the doctrine
with regard to alcohol disability cases was unclear. Accordingly, the district
court concluded that the governments position was substantially justified and
denied Ms. Johnss motion for fees.
Analysis
The EAJA provides that in civil actions, a party who prevails against the
United States is entitled to an award of attorneys fees unless the court finds that
the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special
circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(A). The only
dispute in this appeal is whether the Commissioners position was substantially
justified. Showing substantial justification (e.g., reasonableness in law and fact)
-3-
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-5-