Medrano v. Barnhart

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should
not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in
5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 7, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-50680
Summary Calendar
JOSEPH M. MEDRANO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JO ANN BARNHART, COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas
(USDC No. 5:04-CV-75)
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joseph M. Medrano appeals the denial by the district court of his request for
attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28
U.S.C. § 2412(d). We affirm for these reasons:

-- 1 of 2 --

1. Because there was extensive evidence in the record supporting both sides of
the dispute and the evidence did not conclusively weigh in favor of either
side, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the
government’s position was substantially justified. Pierce v. Underwood, 487
U.S. 552, 565, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 2550, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988) (the position
of the government will be deemed to be substantially justified “if there is a
‘genuine dispute’ ... or ‘if reasonable people could differ as to [the
appropriateness of the contested action]’”).
2. The fact that the district court ultimately remanded the case back to the
agency to further develop the factual record does not lead to a finding of no
substantial justification. Id. at 566 n.2 (stating that “a position can be
justified even though it is not correct”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --