Cha Yang v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHA YANG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-15825
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01495-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Stanley Albert Boone, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2013**
Before: THOMAS, FISHER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Cha Yang appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for attorney’s
fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
We affirm.
FILED
APR 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

The government’s litigating position was the same as the ALJ’s decision, so
the district court did not err by failing to separately analyze the position of the
ALJ.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the ALJ’s
decision, though in error, was substantially justified. See Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d
867, 869-70 (9th Cir. 2013). The panel was divided as to whether Dr.
Mouanoutoua’s evaluation should have been discounted based on evidence of
malingering or other “clear and convincing” reasons for finding Yang not credible.
See Cha Yang v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 488 F. App’x 203 (9th Cir. 2012).
The majority held that the ALJ’s malingering finding was not supported by
substantial evidence and that the ALJ’s other reasons for discounting Yang’s
credibility, although “potentially legitimate,” were not articulated with sufficient
specificity to allow for meaningful judicial review. Id. at 205-06; see Benton ex.
el. Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2003). We therefore
remanded for “further findings evaluating the credibility of Yang’s complaints.”
Yang, 488 F. App’x at 206. The district court carefully reviewed this record, and
appropriately weighed the disagreement among the panel members, in determining
that the government’s position was substantially justified. See Meier, 727 F.3d at
873; Gonzales v. Free Speech Coal., 408 F.3d 613, 619 (9th Cir. 2005).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Each side shall bear its own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --