Michael E. Golembiewski v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the Commissioner’s prelitigation position in SSA proceedings for the purposes of an EAJA inquiry includes the ALJ’s and Appeals Council’s decisions
• noting that our recommended reassignment of a case to a different Administrative Law Judge and firm condemnation of the agency’s position, as occurred in this case, both support the conclusion that the Government’s position lacks substantial justification
• noting that our recommended reassignment of a case to a different Administrative Law Judge and firm condemnation of the agency’s position, as occurred in this case, both support the conclusion that the Government’s position lacks substantial justification
• reversing denial of fees where ALJ had violated long-standing precedent and regulations, and had mischaracterized and overlooked key evidence
• awarding EAJA attorney’s fees because “the ALJ and Commissioner violated clear and long judicial precedent and violated the Commissioner’s own Ruling and Regulations”
• awarding fees and observing that “[w]e did not reject any issue raised by the plaintiff on appeal nor did we adopt or affirm any position taken by the Commissioner”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).