Belen v. Colvin

Background

Maria I. Belen brought a Social Security action challenging the denial of disability benefits. She argued that the administrative law judge had not properly evaluated her credibility or the opinions of her treating physician. The Commissioner initially offered to consent to a remand for further administrative proceedings, but Belen rejected that offer.

Belen later moved for judgment on the pleadings, seeking a remand solely for calculation of benefits. The Commissioner cross-moved for judgment on the pleadings and sought a remand for further proceedings based on a deficiency in the administrative record. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis recommended denying both motions but remanding the case so the administrative law judge could properly evaluate the medical evidence. Judge Gardephe adopted that recommendation, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner. Final judgment was entered on March 15, 2016.

Fee Request and Recommendation

Belen sought attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal statute that can require the government to pay fees to a prevailing party when the government’s position was not substantially justified and no special circumstances make an award unjust. Judge Francis recommended awarding $6,036.96 in attorneys’ fees and $400 in costs.

Judge Francis concluded that Belen’s opposition to the Commissioner’s proposed remand was not unreasonable. The Commissioner had argued that certain medical records were missing from the administrative record but had not adequately explained why they were missing. Belen, by contrast, argued that the administrative law judge had failed to properly evaluate the medical records, and the resulting remand included specific directions for the administrative law judge. Judge Francis also found that Belen’s unsuccessful effort to obtain a time limit for the remand decision was not unreasonable in light of the case’s procedural history.

Commissioner’s Objections

The Commissioner objected that special circumstances made a fee award unjust because Belen had rejected the remand offer, litigated the case, and lost. The Commissioner also argued that the Commissioner’s remand position was substantially justified because the administrative record was incomplete.

Judge Gardephe treated the Commissioner’s repeated arguments about the rejected remand offer as objections that merely repeated arguments already made before Judge Francis and reviewed that part of the recommendation for clear error. He found no clear error. As to the Commissioner’s new arguments about substantial justification, he reviewed them independently and concluded that they did not show that Judge Francis had erred.

The court agreed that a remand based on an incomplete administrative record requires the Commissioner to sufficiently justify why the records were not previously included. The court concluded that the Commissioner had not met that requirement and that the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified.

Ruling

Judge Gardephe adopted Judge Francis’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety and granted Belen’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The court awarded $6,036.96 in attorneys’ fees and $400 in costs.