From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Strong v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Mar 7, 2011
Case No. 0:09-cv-2101-RMG-PJG (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 0:09-cv-2101-RMG-PJG.

March 7, 2011


ORDER


Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees. (Dkt. No. 24). The Defedant has opposed the motion. In this matter, the Commissioner denied benefits. After a de novo review, this Court remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings.

As to the motion at bar, having considered the briefing from both sides, this Court denies the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees. The Equal Access to Justice Act provides attorneys' fees in actions where the government's position is not substantially justified. The substantial justification test is one of reasonableness in law and fact. See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). Here, the Government's position was not unjustified. The position espoused by the Government was not without reason and was well-briefed and argued. Ultimately, however, this Court decided to remand the matter for further findings.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 7, 2011

Charleston, South Carolina


Summaries of

Strong v. Astrue

United States District Court, D. South Carolina
Mar 7, 2011
Case No. 0:09-cv-2101-RMG-PJG (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2011)
Case details for

Strong v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:Martha S. Strong, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social…

Court:United States District Court, D. South Carolina

Date published: Mar 7, 2011

Citations

Case No. 0:09-cv-2101-RMG-PJG (D.S.C. Mar. 7, 2011)

Citing Cases

Neville v. Berryhill

Functional illiteracy can also constitute a deficit in adaptive functioning. See Strong v. Astrue, 2011 WL…