of the United States was substantially justified. . . ." 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412(b), (d)(1)(A).
The Secretary contests the instant application for fees first by arguing that plaintiff has not "prevailed" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b) because, while he was ultimately found to be entitled to disability benefits, the onset date for disability was determined to have occurred substantially later than the originally adjudicated period. This argument, while not without intuitive appeal, overlooks the basic fact that attorney fees awards are generally appropriate under fee-shifting statutes when a party has merely "established his entitlement to some relief on the merits of his claims. . . ." Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 757, 64 L. Ed. 2d 670, 100 S. Ct. 1987 (1980) (emphasis added). In Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275 (1st Cir. 1978) the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit formulated a "two-axle" test for determining EAJA "prevailing party" status. Under Nadeau, parties are considered prevailing either if (i) "they succeed in any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit," 581 F.2d at 278-79, or (ii) if they, by virtue of bringing suit, become the "catalyst" for the achievement of their ultimate benefit; that is, if the litigation is a "necessary and important factor in achieving the improvements" sought by the parties. Id. at 281; Martinez v. Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corp., 628 F. Supp. 996, 998 (D.R.I. 1986). The "catalyst" prong of the Nadeau test, adopted by this Circuit in Ross v. Horn, 598 F.2d 1312 (3d Cir. 1979) requires this court to inquire into the "causal connection" between the litigation and the party's ultimate success. Ross, supra, 598 F.2d at 1322. This inquiry turns on the "provocative role of the plaintiff's lawsuit" in securing the plaintiff's entitlements. J & J Anderson, Inc. v. Town of Erie, 767 F.2d 1469, 1475 (10th Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, plaintiff sought review in this court of the Secretary's final order denying benefits and secured an Order of Remand for further proceedings. In our accompanying Letter Opinion, we held that the ALJ had erred in not considering "documented psychiatric evidence and claimant's non-exertional impairment (depression)." Op. at 3. We therefore commanded the Secretary, on remand, to "consider the claimant's exertional and non-exertional impairments together and determine the impact of the non-exertional impairments on the claimant's ability to do sedentary tasks, using a vocational expert to assist him in addressing this issue." Op. at 4.
Consequently, the Secretary requested that plaintiff undergo a consultive psychiatric exam, and he employed the services of a vocational expert at plaintiff's subsequent administrative hearings before ALJs Hackerman and Neff. It was this additional medical-vocational guidance that finally convinced the Secretary of plaintiff's disability. The Secretary now argues that because this "new medical evidence" was the determinative factor in plaintiff's successful claim, the filing of the civil action was essentially superfluous, and "plaintiff could have achieved the same result by filing new applications for benefits." Defendant's Mem. of Law at 3. This argument, however, assumes the very point at issue; it assumes that the Secretary would have gratuitously applied similar additional psychiatric and vocational resources to plaintiff's case as he was directly and indirectly obliged to do by the force of the litigation. In Philpott v. Gardner, 403 F.2d 774 (6th Cir. 1968), a court facing an identical fact situation as here refused to accept such an assumption. There, the plaintiff applied for social security benefits, alleging an onset date of November, 1962. After denial of his claims in agency proceedings, the plaintiff brought suit in federal district court and won a remand. There, as here, additional evidence was taken on remand which resulted in a finding of disability commencing at a later date (June, 1965) than that originally litigated. Nevertheless, the court, finding that "appellant's suit . . . resulted in partial recovery on a claim previously denied in full" held that the plaintiff was a "prevailing party" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and entitled to costs and attorney's fees. 403 F.2d at 775. See also Sterner v. Department of Army, 711 F.2d 1563, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (reading Philpott as holding that EAJA requires "less than total victory to satisfy the requirement of prevailing.").
This court therefore concludes that consistent with Philpott and with the "catalyst" axle of the Nadeau test, plaintiff's lawsuit played a sufficiently provocative role in the outcome of his case to warrant a finding that he is a "prevailing party" for the purposes of EAJA.
The Secretary next argues that even if plaintiff may be considered a "prevailing party" under EAJA, the agency's position in opposing plaintiff's disability claims was "substantially justified" and thus cannot trigger the fee-shifting machinery of the statute. The Secretary asserts that the test of whether or not a government action is substantially justified "is essentially one of reasonableness." Therefore, argues the Secretary, even though this court previously determined that the agency's original decision denying plaintiff's claims was not based on "substantial evidence," we may yet find that its position was "reasonable" in law and fact and thus "substantially justified." Defts. Mem. of Law at 4.
This is a question that has given courts of our Circuit considerable difficulty in recent years. The legal principles are settled: "Substantial justification 'constitute[s] a middle ground between an automatic award of fees to a prevailing party and an award made only when the government's position was frivolous.'" Washington v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 959, 961 (3d Cir. 1985) (citing Dougherty v. Lehman, 711 F.2d 555, 563 (3d Cir. 1983)). The burden of proving the statutory concept of substantial justification, placed upon the government, "is a strong one," requiring more than the adduction of "some evidence" to support its underlying position. Edge v. Schweiker, 814 F.2d 125, 128 (3d Cir. 1987); Russell v. Heckler, 814 F.2d 148, 153 (3d Cir. 1987). Instead, the government must show:
a reasonable basis in truth for the facts alleged, a reasonable basis in law for the theory it propounds, and a reasonable connection between the facts alleged and the legal theory advanced.