Rhonda O'Neal v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Rhonda L. O’Neal (O’Neal) was successful in a previous appeal to this court, receiving an award of social security benefits. See O’Neal v. Astrue, 391 Fed.Appx. 614 (9th Cir.2010) (unpublished decision). O’Neal now challenges the district court’s denial of her motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d). O’Neal argues that the district court erred in finding that the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified. We review a district court’s finding that the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified for abuse of discretion. See Hardisty v. Astrue, 592 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.2010), cert. denied, —U.S.—, 131 S.Ct. 2443 , 179 L.Ed.2d 1215 (2011).

Where the Commissioner defends “basic and fundamental errors,” his defense often lacks substantial justification. Corbin v. Apfel, 149 F.3d 1051, 1053 (9th Cir.1998). Defense of an administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) failure to comply with laws or regulations also lacks substantial justification. See Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1259-60 (9th Cir.2001). On the other hand, where resolution of the case turns on the weight and evaluation of the…