Smith v. Schweiker, 80 C 0258.
Decision Date | 25 August 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 80 C 0258.,80 C 0258. |
Citation | 563 F. Supp. 891 |
Parties | Martha SMITH, Plaintiff, v. Richard SCHWEIKER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
John T. McManus, Far Rockaway, N.Y., The Legal Aid Society (Joan Heckerling, Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), for plaintiff.
Edward R. Korman, U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Jo Davis, Asst. U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), for defendant.
On November 3, 1981, this court reversed a determination of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying in part plaintiff's application for Supplemental Security Income benefits and adjudged plaintiff eligible for benefits from February 25, 1976 and thereafter. Familiarity with the court's memorandum and order is assumed.
The Government urges that (1) the fees were not "incurred" by plaintiff because she is not obliged to pay the Legal Aid Society, (2) the Government's position before this court was "substantially justified," (3) the Act does not authorize awards for services before October 1, 1981, and (4) the hours spent on the case were excessive. Since the Government's position in the litigation in this court, while unsuccessful, was "substantially justified," the court need not decide the other issues.
Section 2412(d)(1)(A) requires the court to award fees and expenses incurred in the "action" unless "the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified" or special circumstances make an award unjust. It is clear from the wording of the section that the "position" referred to is that of the Government in this court.
The Congressional Committee reports make it plain that while the burden of proof rests with Government, "the test of whether or not a Government action is substantially justified is essentially one of reasonableness." H.Rep. No. 96-1418, 96th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 4953, 4984, 4989; see also S.Rep. No. 96-253, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. In order to show that its position before this court was "substantially justified" the Government need not show that it won the case or even that "its decision to litigate was based on a substantial probability of prevailing." H.Rep., supra, at 11, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1980, p. 4990; S.Rep., supra, at 7. The Congressional Reports show that the words "substantially justified" were copied from Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring an award of expenses and attorney's fees to a prevailing party on a motion to compel discovery unless the court finds that the position of the losing party was "substantially justified." Under that rule if the discovery dispute is "genuine" the losing party is "substantially justified." Advisory Committee Notes, 48 F.R.D. at 540.
The court finds that it was reasonable for the Government to attempt to sustain the administrative decision in this case and that therefore the position...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Katz v. Sullivan
... ... Schweiker, 563 F.Supp. 888, 890 D.Minn. 1982 citing Lauritzen v. Weinberger, 514 ... Commissioner, 296 U.S. 344, 56 S.Ct. 289, 80 L.Ed. 263 (1935), in deciding whether the Israelite House of David was a ... ...
-
Trujillo v. Heckler, 82-K-1505
...substantial evidence"); Moholland v. Schweiker, 546 F.Supp. 383, 386 (D.N.H.1982) (there is "no genuine dispute"); Smith v. Schweiker, 563 F.Supp. 891, 893 (E.D.N.Y.1982) (a position "wholly free from 3See Zimmerman v. Schweiker, 575 F.Supp. 1436, 1440 (E.D.N.Y.1983): There is often a speci......
-
Zimmerman v. Schweiker, CV-82-2217.
...Moholland v. Schweiker, 546 F.Supp. 383, 386 (D.N.H.1982); and its position is not "wholly free from doubt," Smith v. Schweiker, 563 F.Supp. 891, 893 (E.D.N.Y.1982). Defendant's position is that the no "genuine dispute" standard is proper. This contention is predicated upon the fact that th......
-
San Filippo v. Secretary of Hlth. & Human Services
...This question is usually "not wholly free from doubt" because of conflicting evidence in the record. See Smith v. Schweiker, 563 F.Supp. 891, (E.D.N.Y. 1982). The Government's attempt to sustain the administrative decision may therefore be reasonable, even if the Court ultimately determines......