Damato v. Sullivan
Citation | 945 F.2d 982 |
Decision Date | 06 January 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 90-1402,90-1402 |
Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 16290A Ralph DAMATO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Frederick J. Daley (argued), Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.
Ann L. Wallace, Asst. U.S. Atty., Office of the U.S. Atty., Criminal Div., Gary A. Sultz (argued), Dept. of Health and Human Services, Region V, Office of the Gen. Counsel, Nancy K. Needles, Asst. U.S. Atty., Office of the U.S. Atty., Civil Div., Appellate Section, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee.
Before CUMMINGS, CUDAHY, and COFFEY, Circuit Judges.
Damato brought this action seeking attorney fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1) as the prevailing party in an action against the United States. The district court rejected the request for attorney fees, finding that the position of the United States was substantially justified. We affirm.
Claiming an inability to work as a result of emphysema and bronchitis as well as poor circulation in his legs, Ralph Damato filed an application for Supplemental Security Income disability benefits pursuant to Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. on September 27, 1983. Upon denial of his application as well as a denial of his request for reconsideration, Damato petitioned for an administrative hearing. After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") determined that:
Damato requested that the Social Security Administration's Appeals Council review the ALJ's decision. As additional evidence of permanent disability, Damato submitted a letter from the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, dated one week after the ALJ's decision, which informed him that:
The claimant further submitted two medical reports dated prior to the ALJ's decision. Upon considering the administrative record, the additional evidence and Damato's attorney's arguments to the Council, the Appeals Council rejected Damato's request for review:
Thereafter Damato filed an action in the district court alleging that the decision of the ALJ was not supported by substantial evidence, and thus, the Appeals Council erred in denying the request for review. After both Damato and the Secretary filed their motions (fully briefed) for summary judgment, the case was assigned to a magistrate for a Report and Recommendation. The magistrate's Report and Recommendation stated that there was substantial evidence to support the Administrative Law Judge's decision. Nonetheless, the magistrate recommended that the claim be remanded on a ground not argued by Damato--that Damato was entitled to an explanation of why the Appeals Council rejected the state agency's determination that Damato was unemployable. The magistrate acknowledged that "the Secretary is presumably not bound by the determination of the state agency," yet the magistrate believed that the Appeals Council was required to evaluate the factors upon which the state relied and articulate its reasoning for rejecting the same. The magistrate suggested that a remand was proper "for the limited purpose of determining whether plaintiff's impairments prevent him from meeting normal attendance requirements in the workplace." Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the district judge adopted it and remanded the claim "to the Secretary for further proceedings in accordance with the report and recommendation."
The Appeals Council adopted the ALJ's recommended decision on December 19, 1988. Almost two months later on February 16, 1989, Damato filed a motion in the district court for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) on the ground that the Appeals Council erred as a matter of law in failing to articulate its reasons for not accepting the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services' conclusion that Damato was permanently disabled. The government objected to awarding attorney fees, arguing that the Appeals Council was substantially justified in refusing to review the ALJ's initial decision without specifically articulating its reasoning. The district court rejected Damato's request for attorney fees, as it found that "the position taken by the Secretary throughout both the administrative and judicial proceedings was substantially justified."
The two issues presented upon review are: 1) Whether Damato's motion for attorney fees under the EAJA was untimely filed, thus depriving the district court of jurisdiction; and 2) Did the district court abuse its discretion in holding that the Appeals Council need not articulate its reasoning for finding additional evidence unpersuasive when denying a request for review of an ALJ's decision.
In order to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court for attorney fees under the EAJA, the party seeking fees must file its application "within 30 days of the final judgment in the action...." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). Cf. United States v. J.H.T. Inc., 872 F.2d 373, 375 (11th Cir.1989); Olson v. Norman, 830 F.2d 811, 821 (8th Cir.1987); Allen v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 781 F.2d 92, 94 (6th Cir.1986). Citing Melkonyan v. Heckler, 895 F.2d 556, 559 (9th Cir.1990), the Secretary argued in his brief that the Appeals Council's decision of December 19, 1988, granting benefits to Damato was the "final judgment" for purposes of the EAJA, and therefore, the February 16, 1989 request for attorney fees was untimely. This Court recently followed the Ninth Circuit's decision in Melkonyan to hold that a decision of the Appeals Council granting the benefits a claimant sought was a final judgment as defined in Section 2412(d)(2)(G) 1 in Jabaay v. Sullivan, 920 F.2d 472, 473 (7th Cir.1990). After the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Melkonyan, we entered an order February 12, 1991, holding Damato's appeal in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's disposition. On June 10, 1991, the Supreme Court held that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scarborough v. Principi
...see also Yang v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 213, 215 n. 4 (9th Cir.1994); Newsome v. Shalala, 8 F.3d 775, 777 (11th Cir.1993); Damato v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 982, 986 (7th Cir.1991); Welter v. Sullivan, 941 F.2d 674, 675 (8th Cir.1991); Peters v. Sec'y of HHS, 934 F.2d 693, 694 (6th The issue in this a......
-
Holt v. Shalala
...but rather contemplated a return to the district court. See, e.g., Young v. Sullivan, 972 F.2d 830 (7th Cir.1992); Damato v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 982 (7th Cir.1991). The Supreme Court clarified the relationship between Hudson and Melkonyan in its 1993 decision in Shalala v. Schaefer, --- U.S.......
-
Vandross v. Berryhill, Civil Action No. 8:16-cv-01915-RBH-JDA
...Council must "make its own finding" and "articulate its own assessment" as to new evidence when denying review); Damato v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 982, 988-89 (7th Cir. 1992) (holding that "the Appeals Council may deny review without articulating its reasoning" even when new and material evidenc......
-
Labrie v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 92-1066
...Circuit embraced this narrow interpretation of sentence four in Young v. Sullivan, 972 F.2d 830 (7th Cir.1992), and Damato v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 982 (7th Cir.1991). In both cases, it went on to proffer a curious variant of this approach--suggesting that, because the remand order fell under ......
-
Issue topics
...that legal determination, but rather the definition of “material” from case law about sentence six of § 405(g).] In Damato v. Sullivan , 945 F.2d 982 (7th Cir. 1991), a case involving attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), the Seventh Circuit ruled flatly ......
-
Table of Cases
...§§ 103.4, 204.1, 204.4, 603.5, 1603.5 Daley v. Apfel , 1998 WL 111638, *7 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 1998), §§ 803, 1803.1 Damato v. Sullivan , 945 F.2d 982 (7th Cir. 1991), § 1604.11 Damron v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. , 104 F.3d 853, 855 (6th Cir. 1997), §§ 701.1, 701.2, 701.9, 702.4, 702.14 Damron v. ......
-
Federal Court Review
...Dep’t of Health and Human Servs. , 983 F.2d 815 (7th Cir. 1993); Scivally v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1070 (7th Cir. 1992); Damato v. Sullivan , 945 F.2d 982, 989 (7th Cir. 1991); Nelson v. Bowen , 855 F.2d 503 (7th Cir. 1988). Eighth Circuit: Bergmann v. Apfel , 207 F.3d 1065 (8th Cir. 2000); Ri......
-
Issue topics
...that legal determination, but rather the definition of “material” from case law about sentence six of § 405(g).] In Damato v. Sullivan , 945 F.2d 982 (7th Cir. 1991), a case involving attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), the Seventh Circuit ruled flatly ......