Majority and Dissent Differed Over Application of Meier v. Covin.
In an earlier opinion, the Ninth Circuit had reversed the denial of social security disability benefits. However, the federal appeals court then denied the winner’s request for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which generally supports fee requests unless the government’s position was substantially justified.
That denial occurred in Campbell v. Astrue, Case No. 11-55486 (9th Cir. Nov. 26, 2013) (published), except that it happened in a 2-1 decision over a dissent by Circuit Judge Wardlaw.
The majority found that this was an “unusual case” requiring a denial of EAJA fees because the government’s position was substantially justified. Although finding the case to be similar to an opposite result reached in Meier v. Covin, 727 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2013) [discussed in our July 23, 2013 post], the majority distinguished Meier as involving a present disability determination versus an ALJ in Campbell having to extrapolate a past disability based upon a review of medical records such that the government’s opposition was justified under the circumstances.
Circuit Judge Wardlaw disagreed with the fee denial, finding Meier dispositive and believing the case was not “unusual” for fee determination purposes–in derogation of different outcomes usually warranted under the EAJA fee-shifting statute.