Halverson
Halverson v. Barnhart
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
In a prior appeal, we reversed the district court’s judgment affirming the deci *143 sion of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) to deny benefits to Cheryl Halverson, and we remanded for an award of benefits. Halverson now appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 . We reverse on the question of attorneys’ fees and remand on the question of costs.
The parties are familiar with the facts and the medical evidence in the underlying record, so we proceed to the discussion of attorneys’ fees. A party that prevails against the United States in a civil action is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees under the EAJA “unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1)(A). The EAJA creates a presumption that fees will be awarded to prevailing parties. See Thomas v. Peterson, 841 F.2d 332, 335 (9th Cir.1988). Therefore, it is the government’s burden to show that its position was substantially justified. See Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir.2001).