Sandra Gundy v. Michael Astrue

MEMORANDUM

Sandra Gundy appeals from the district court’s denial of her application for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 . A prevailing party is entitled to fees under the EAJA “unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified.” Id. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Gun-dy applied for the fees after we reversed the district court’s decision affirming the denial of Gundy’s application for disability benefits. Gundy v. Astrue, 433 Fed.Appx. 595, 596-97 (9th Cir.2011).

“[I]n order to avoid a fee award the government must demonstrate the reasonableness of both its original action at the administrative level and its decision to defend that action in court.” Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562 , 570 n. 11 (9th Cir.1995) (citation omitted). These two inquiries overlap such that “the inquiry into the government’s litigation position will ordinarily encompass the inquiry into the administrative decision.” Id. The nature and scope of the ALJ’s legal errors are material in determining whether the Commissioner’s decision to defend them was substantially justified. Sampson v. Chater, 103 F.3d 918, 922 (9th Cir.1996). The…