Leonard Rene Garcia prevailed in his Social Security disability appeal after the court granted his motion for summary judgment on March 26 and remanded his case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Garcia's attorney, Francesco Benavides, then sought attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which provides fee awards to private litigants who prevail against the United States in civil actions.
Judge Burns found the government had not demonstrated its position was substantially justified, noting that the Commissioner did not oppose the fee request. 'Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party unless it finds the government's position was substantially justified or that special circumstances make such an award unjust,' Burns wrote. 'Here, the government did not show its position was substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an award unjust.'
The court calculated that the $9,200 fee award represented approximately 38 hours of attorney time at the statutory maximum rate, which Burns found reasonable given the scope of work required. As the judge explained, the fee was 'commensurate with the number of hours an attorney would need to have spent reviewing the certified administrative record in this case (approximately 1,455 pages), preparing a motion for summary judgment that includes 17 pages of argument, and preparing a reply brief that includes four pages of argument.'
The case began in 2022 when Garcia challenged the Commissioner's denial of his disability benefits claim. Both parties consented to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). Garcia filed his fee petition on April 8, one day after judgment was entered, making it timely under Ninth Circuit precedent.
The government did not contest Garcia's status as a prevailing party, which is established under Supreme Court precedent for plaintiffs who obtain sentence-four remands under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Judge Burns cited the 1993 Supreme Court decision in Shalala v. Schaefer, which held that 'a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party.'
The Eastern District of California has consistently found government positions unjustified when the Commissioner agrees to remand Social Security cases. Burns referenced two prior district court decisions reaching the same conclusion, noting that courts have found 'position of the government was not substantially justified in view of the Commissioner's assent to remand.'
The fee award is subject to Treasury Offset Program requirements, meaning it could be reduced if Garcia owes federal debt. Under the parties' stipulation, the $9,200 will be paid to Garcia initially, but 'if the Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be made directly to Plaintiff's counsel,' as Burns explained in his order.