Harrold v. Astrue , 372 F. App'x 903 ( 2010 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 13, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
JERRY L. HARROLD,
Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 09-5116
(D.C. No. 4:06-CV-00589-FHM)
v. (N.D. Okla.)
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner, Social Security
Administration,
Defendant-Appellee
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, BALDOCK, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellant Jerry L. Harrold appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion for attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (the Equal Access to Justice
Act or EAJA). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing
to award fees, 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 This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and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. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
In the underlying case, Mr. Harrold appealed the district court’s affirmance
of the Commissioner’s denial of his application for social security disability
insurance benefits. This court reversed. Harrold v. Astrue, 299 F. App’x 783,
789 (10th Cir. 2008). In so doing, we instructed the district court to remand to
the Commissioner for a step-three determination of whether a clinical
psychologist’s “mild-retardation opinion, the supporting IQ scores, and
Mr. Harrold’s additional severe impairments at step two satisfy the capsule
definition and the severity prong of Listing 12.05C.” Id. at 788.
Because Mr. Harrold obtained a district-court remand to the Commissioner
under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), he is a prevailing party for EAJA
purposes. Hackett v. Barnhart, 475 F.3d 1166, 1168 (10th Cir. 2007)
(Hackett II). He is therefore “entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees from
the United States unless the court finds that the position of the United States was
substantially justified[,]” id. (internal quotation marks omitted), or there are
“special circumstances that make an award of fees unjust[,]” id. at 1172. Because
the Commissioner does not make the latter argument, “[t]he only dispute in this
appeal is whether the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified.” Id.
In denying the fee motion, the magistrate judge concluded that the
Commissioner’s position both at the agency level and at the litigation level was
substantially justified. We agree.
-2-
The Commissioner has the burden of demonstrating that his position was
substantially justified, a test that, in this circuit, means his position was
reasonable in law and in fact and thus can be “justified to a degree that could
satisfy a reasonable person.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Even though
the Commissioner’s position turns out to be incorrect, it can still be justified. Id.
Both the Commissioner’s prelitigation and litigation positions must have had
reasonable bases in fact and law to be considered substantially justified.
Gutierrez v. Sullivan, 953 F.2d 579, 585 (10th Cir. 1992).
“We review the district court’s determination of whether the government’s
position was substantially justified for abuse of discretion.” Gilbert v. Shalala,
45 F.3d 1391, 1394 (10th Cir. 1995). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the
district court bases its ruling on an erroneous conclusion of law or relies on
clearly erroneous fact findings.” Hackett II, 475 F.3d at 1172 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
After the hearing before the ALJ, Mr. Harrold’s attorney arranged for him
to be tested by Dr. William Bryant, a clinical psychologist. Dr. Bryant’s report
was submitted to the Appeals Council which made it part of the record on appeal.
In the report, Dr. Bryant stated that Mr. Harrold has a Full Scale IQ of 61. Based
on that score and other tests he administered to Mr. Harrold, Dr. Bryant
concluded that Mr. Harrold has mild mental retardation and that he essentially
cannot read.
-3-
The Appeals Council did not find Dr. Bryant’s report sufficient to change
the administrative law judge’s denial-of-benefits decision. The Council stated:
The [doctor who performed the consultative physical examination]
noted that you reported a learning disability and is silent for any
reports of mental retardation. None of your treatment sources noted
observations consistent with a diagnosis of mental retardation. Your
work history is inconsistent with developmental deficiencies. Your
report to Dr. Bryant that implied that your past work was of a routine
nature learned in a supportive environment is not consistent with
your description of your past work in the documentary record. You
reported using power and hand tools, repairing a variety of
appliances including heaters, air conditioners, stoves etc., and doing
remodeling including dry wall work.
Harrold, 299 F. App’x at 786 (record cites omitted).
On appeal, this court held that the Appeals Council’s rejection of
Dr. Bryant’s report was not supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 787. We
paid particular attention to the Appeals Council’s conclusion that “Mr. Harrold’s
‘work history is inconsistent with developmental deficiencies.’” Id. at 788. We
began by noting that the Appeals Council relied on much the same type of
evidence we relied on in Lax v. Astrue, 489 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007), where
“we concluded that the record in that case contained substantial evidence to
support a finding that the claimant’s IQ scores were not an accurate reflection of
his intellectual abilities.” Harrold, 299 F. App’x at 788. After distinguishing
Lax, we concluded that “the Appeals Council erred in relying on Mr. Harrold’s
prior work history as a basis for rejecting Dr. Bryant’s mild-retardation opinion
and the IQ scores.” Id.
-4-
In explaining why it thought the Commissioner’s position had been
substantially justified, the district court pointed to the conflict in the record
between Mr. Harrold’s own description of his work history as a maintenance
worker in an apartment house (which involved preparing work orders, supervising
other employees, remodeling units, and using tools) with the report he gave the
clinical psychologist that his work had been routine and learned in a supportive
environment. The Commissioner had correctly cited a regulation in his brief in
the merits appeal cautioning that “the results of intelligence tests are only part of
the overall assessment” and that it is important to also consider whether the IQ
scores are “consistent with the developmental history and the degree of functional
limitation.” 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 12.00(D)(6)(a). Reflecting our
attention to the regulation, our order and judgment on the merits devoted
considerable attention to the seeming conflict between Mr. Harrold’s prior work
history and his diagnosis of mild mental retardation. See Harrold, 299 F. App’x
at 788.
The Commissioner was substantially justified in arguing that the Appeals
Council had correctly denied benefits based on its consideration of Dr. Bryant’s
report, not in isolation, but in context with the rest of the record evidence,
particularly Mr. Harrold’s prior work history. The fact that this court ultimately
held that the reasons relied upon by the Commissioner to deny benefits were not
supported by substantial evidence does not necessarily mean that the
-5-
Commissioner’s position, either at the agency level or in later litigation, was not
substantially justified. See Hadden v. Bowen, 851 F.2d 1266, 1269 (10th Cir.
1988). The district court did not abuse its discretion in so finding. 1
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
1
The fact that the district court mentioned a fact from the record that was
not relied on by the Appeals Council in its merits decision does not mean that the
court’s denial of an EAJA award was tainted by inappropriate post hoc
rationalization. The denial of a fee award was within the bounds of discretion
because the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified.
-6-