Toennis v. Colvin
Court Docket Sheet

District of Alaska

3:2016-cv-00246 (akd)

MOTION for Leave to Appear as Pro Hac Vice (Non-Resident) Attorney Howard D. Olinsky. (Pro Hac Vice Admission fee $150.00 paid. Receipt number 097--2318842.) by Iven Toennis.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA IVEN TOENNIS, Case No. 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Plaintiff(s), MOTION AND APPLICATION OF vs. NON-ELIGIBLE ATTORNEY FOR NANCY A. BERRYHILL, PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND Acting Commissioner of Social Security, PARTICIPATE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Defendant(s). FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA To the Honorable Judge of the above-entitled court: I, Howard D. Olinsky, hereby apply for permission to appear and (name) participate as counsel for Iven Toennis, plaintiff, (Name of party) (plaintiff/defendant) in the above-entitled cause pursuant to Rule 83.1 (d) of the Local Rules for the United States District Court, District of Alaska. I hereby apply for permission to appear and participate as counsel WITHOUT ASSOCIATION of local counsel because [check whichever of the following boxes apply, if any]: I am a registered participant in the CM/ECF System for the District of Alaska and consent to service by electronic means through the court's CM/ECF System. I have concurrently herewith submitted an application to the Clerk of the Court for registration as a participant in the CM/ECF System for the District of Alaska and consent to service by electronic means through the court's CM/ECF System. For the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum. Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 22 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 4 OR I hereby designate, a member of the Bar of this court, (Name) who maintains an office at the place within the district, with whom the court and opposing counsel may readily communicate regarding conduct of this case. DATE: (Signature) Howard D. Olinsky (Printed Name) (Address) (City/State/Zip) (Telephone Number) (e-mail address) Consent of Local Counsel* I hereby consent to the granting of the foregoing application. DATE: (Signature) (Printed Name) (Address) (City, State, Zip) (Telephone) (*Member of the Bar of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska) Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 22 Filed 04/20/17 Page 2 of 4 DECLARATION OF NON-ELIGIBLE ATTORNEY Full Name: Howard D. Olinsky Business Address: 300 S. South Street, Ste. 420, Syracuse, NY 13202 (Mailing/Street) (City, State, ZIP) Residence: 4435 Swissvale Drive, Manlius, NY 13104 (Mailing/Street) (City, State, ZIP) Business Telephone: 315-701-5780 e-mail address: holinsky@windisability.com Other Names/Aliases: N/A Jurisdictions to Which Admitted and year of Admission: See attached sheet (Jurisdiction) (Address) (Year) (Jurisdiction) (Address) (Year) (Jurisdiction) (Address) (Year) (Jurisdiction) (Address) (Year) Are you the subject of any pending disciplinary proceeding in any jurisdiction to which admitted? Yes No (If Yes, provide details on a separate attached sheet) Have you ever been suspended from practice or disbarred in any jurisdiction to which admitted? Yes No (If Yes, provide details on a separate attached sheet) In accordance with D.AK. LR 83.1(d)(4)[A](vi), I certify I have read the District of Alaska local rules by visiting the court's website at http://www.akd.uscourts.gov and understand that the practices and procedures of this court may differ from the practices and procedures in the courts to which I am regularly admitted. A Certificate of Good Standing from a jurisdiction to which I have been admitted is attached. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information is true, correct, and accurate. Dated: April 20, 2017 s/Howard D. Olinsky (Signature of Applicant) Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 22 Filed 04/20/17 Page 3 of 4 Attachment to Pro Hac Vice Application for Howard D. Olinsky: Court Date of Admission In Good Standing? New York State 02/07/1986 YES State of Georgia 01/23/2014 YES United States Supreme Court 04/01/1991 YES Court of Appeals for 2nd Circuit 11/01/2002 YES Court of Appeals for 6th Circuit 10/15/2013 YES Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit 06/12/2007 YES U.S. Court of Veteran’s Appeals, Washington D.C. 06/12/2007 YES U.S.D.C., NDNY 04/22/1986 YES U.S.D.C., WDNY 01/29/2001 YES U.S.D.C., EDNY 03/21/2003 YES U.S.D.C., SDNY 03/25/2003 YES U.S.D.C., DCT 12/10/2010 YES U.S.D.C., NDFL 10/31/2011 YES U.S.D.C., EDMI 02/25/2013 YES U.S.D.C., WDMI 12/26/2013 YES U.S.D.C., EDTX 12/20/2013 YES U.S.D.C., EDAR 01/03/2014 YES U.S.D.C., WDAR 01/03/2014 YES U.S.D.C., MDGA 01/28/2014 YES U.S.D.C., NDIL 01/30/2014 YES U.S.D.C., NDGA 02/10/2014 YES U.S.D.C., EDWI 04/14/2014 YES U.S.D.C., NDTX 05/15/2014 YES U.S.D.C., DCO 06/18/2014 YES U.S.D.C., SDGA 06/02/2014 YES U.S.D.C., WDWI 07/03/2014 YES U.S.D.C., WDTX 09/15/2014 YES U.S.D.C., NDIN 08/04/2015 YES U.S.D.C., CDIL 09/24/2015 YES U.S.D.C., SDIL 09/25/2015 YES U.S.D.C., EDMO 04/13/2017 YES Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 22 Filed 04/20/17 Page 4 of 4

Certificate of Good Standing

AO 136 (Rev. 10/13) Certificate of Good Standing UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Northern District of New York CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING I, Lawrence K. Baerman, Clerk of this Court, certify that HOWARD D. OLINSKY, Bar # 102297, was duly admitted to practice in this Court on April 22, 1986, and is in good standing as a member of the Bar of this Court. Dated at Syracuse, New York on March 27, 2017 (Location) (Date) Lawrence K. Baerman CLERK DEPUTY CLERK Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 22-1 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 1

ORDER granting [22] Application of Non-Resident Attorney

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting IVEN TOENNIS v. Commissioner of Social Security JUDGE H. RUSSEL HOLLAND CASE NO. 3:16-cv-0246-HRH PROCEEDINGS: ORDER FROM CHAMBERS The court has reviewed the motion for admission1 of non-resident attorney Howard D. Olinsky for permission to appear and participate in this case as counsel for plaintiff Iven Toennis without the association of local counsel. The motion is granted. 1 Docket No. 22. Order from Chambers – Application of Non-Resident Attorney-1-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 23 Filed 04/24/17 Page 1 of 1

ORDER granting [12] Motion for Remand. The Commissioner's decision is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 5/3/17.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA IVEN TOENNIS,)) Plaintiff,)) vs.)) NANCY A. BERRYHILL, acting) Commissioner of Social Security,)) No. 3:16-cv-0246-HRH Defendant.) _______________________________________) ORDER This is an action for judicial review of the denial of disability benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434, 1381-1383f. Plaintiff Iven Toennis has timely filed his opening brief,1 to which defendant Nancy A. Berryhill has responded.2 Oral argument was not requested and is not deemed necessary. Procedural Background On December 3, 2013, plaintiff filed an application for disability benefits under Title II and Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff originally alleged that he became disabled on January 31, 2009, but at his hearing, he requested that his onset date be amended 1 Docket No. 12. 2 Docket No. 20.-1-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 18 to November 11, 2011.3 Plaintiff alleges that he is disabled due to degenerative disc disease in his back, arthritis, nerve damage, a herniated/bulging disc, anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder. Plaintiff’s applications were denied initially on January 15, 2014. After a hearing on November 5, 2014, an administrative law judge (ALJ) denied plaintiff’s claims. On September 7, 2016, the Appeals Council denied plaintiff’s request for review, thereby making the ALJ’s April 10, 2015 decision the final decision of the Commissioner. On October 20, 2016, plaintiff commenced this action in which he asks the court to find that he is entitled to disability benefits. General Background Plaintiff was born on June 2, 1976. He was 37 years old at the time of the administrative hearing. Plaintiff has an eighth or ninth grade education. Plaintiff was in special education classes while in school. Plaintiff lives with his two daughters in a 30-foot motor home with an 8 x 15 foot addition added on. Plaintiff’s past relevant work includes work as a roofer and a truck driver. The ALJ’s Decision The ALJ first determined that plaintiff "meets the insured status requirements of the Social Security Act through March 31, 2015."4 The ALJ then applied the five-step sequential analysis used to determine whether an 3 Admin. Rec. at 40. There is no indication in the record as to whether this request was granted. 4 Admin. Rec. at 18.-2-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 2 of 18 individual is disabled.5 At step one, the ALJ found that plaintiff had "not engaged in substantial gainful activity since January 31, 2009, the alleged onset date...."6 The ALJ noted that plaintiff had worked in 2011 and 2012 but found that "this work activity did not rise to the level of substantial gainful activity."7 At step two, the ALJ found that plaintiff had "the following severe impairments: a 5 The five steps are as follows: Step one: Is the claimant presently engaged in substantial gainful activity? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, proceed to step two. Step two: Is the claimant’s alleged impairment sufficiently severe to limit... h[is] ability to work? If so, proceed to step three. If not, the claimant is not disabled. Step three: Does the claimant’s impairment, or combination of impairments, meet or equal an impairment listed in 20 C.F.R., pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1? If so, the claimant is disabled. If not, proceed to step four. Step four: Does the claimant possess the residual functional capacity ("RFC") to perform... h[is] past relevant work? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, proceed to step five. Step five: Does the claimant’s RFC, when considered with the claimant’s age, education, and work experience, allow... h[im] to adjust to other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy? If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the claimant is disabled. Stout v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2006). 6 Admin. Rec. at 18. 7 Admin. Rec. at 18.-3-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 3 of 18 spinal disorder and an affective disorder...."8 At step three, the ALJ found that plaintiff did not "have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments in 20 CFR Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1...."9 The ALJ considered Listing 1.00 (musculoskeletal system impairments) and Listing 12.04 (depressive, bipolar and related disorders). The ALJ considered the "paragraph B" criteria and found that plaintiff had mild restrictions in activities of daily living, mild difficulties with social functioning, moderate difficulties with regard to concentration, persistence, or pace, and no episodes of decompensation that have been of extended duration.10 The ALJ also found that the "paragraph C" criteria were not satisfied.11 "Between steps three and four, the ALJ must, as an intermediate step, assess the claimant’s RFC." Bray v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1222-23 (9th Cir. 2009). The ALJ found that plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to perform light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567(b) and 416.967(b) except frequent climbing of ramps or stairs, occasional climbing of ladders, ropes or scaffolds, frequent stooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawling. The claimant must avoid concentrated exposure to extreme cold, excessive vibration, and hazardous machinery. Work is limited 8 Admin. Rec. at 18. 9 Admin. Rec. at 23. 10 Admin. Rec. at 23. 11 Admin. Rec. at 23.-4-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 4 of 18 to 1 to 2 step tasks, with only frequent interaction with the public.[12] The ALJ found plaintiff’s pain and symptom statements less than credible because they were not supported by objective medical evidence and because they were inconsistent with plaintiff’s reported daily activities.13 The ALJ gave great weight14 to the opinion of Dr. Campbell.15 The ALJ gave some weight16 to the opinion of Dr. Hrin.17 The ALJ also gave some weight18 to the opinions of 12 Admin. Rec. at 24. 13 Admin. Rec. at 27. 14 Admin. Rec. at 27. 15 On September 13, 2013, William Campbell, M.D., did a psychiatric disability evaluation. Dr. Campbell’s assessment was as follows: Iven Toennis is taking oxycodone for chronic back pain. He also smokes marijuana four times a day. He takes Xanax for anxiety. He has some cognitive deficits on examination. Mr. Toennis complains of chronic anxiety and depression. Opiates, marijuana and Xanax will contribute to symptoms such as anxiety, depression, insomnia, chronic fatigue, irritability and cognitive deficits on a pharmacologic basis. His social situation is very difficult. Mr. Toennis shows little motivation to curtail his use of drugs. His prognosis is very poor. He is competent to manage his own benefits. Admin. Rec. at 394. Plaintiff has a medical marijuana card. Admin. Rec. at 422. 16 Admin. Rec. at 27. 17 Admin. Rec. at 28. Dr. Hrin’s opinion is discussed below in detail. 18 Admin. Rec. at 27-28.-5-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 5 of 18 Dr. Winn19 and Ms. Hondl.20 And, the ALJ gave no weight to the opinions of Ms. Shea.21 At step four, the ALJ found that plaintiff was "unable to perform any past relevant work...."22 At step five, based on the testimony of the vocational expert,23 the ALJ found that "there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that the claimant can perform" including fast food worker and cashier.24 19 On January 15, 2014, Wandall Winn, M.D., opined that plaintiff was moderately limited in his ability to understand/remember/carry out detailed instructions; maintain attention and concentration for extended periods; work in coordination with or in proximity of others without being distracted by them; interact appropriately with the general public; and accept instructions and respond appropriately with coworkers or peers without distracting them or exhibiting behavioral extremes. Admin. Rec. at 105-106. Dr. Winn also opined that plaintiff is able "to understand and remember simple 1-2 step tasks"; "to sustain concentra-tion, persistence and pace for simple tasks in a limited public setting"; and "to sustain work activity in a limited public setting with a supportive supervisor." Admin. Rec. at 105-106. 20 On May 21, 2013, Sundi Hondl at Excel Physical Therapy did a functional abilities assessment. Hondl opined that plaintiff fell in the light to medium level category depending on positions he is in. If at waist level, he can handle 30#, but if lower (knee level) or higher (crown level), 16-20# was the limit. Admin. Rec. at 455. 21 Admin. Rec. at 28. Ms. Shea’s opinions are discussed below in detail. 22 Admin. Rec. at 28. 23 Richard Cutler testified as the vocational expert. Admin. Rec. at 64-69. 24 Admin. Rec. at 29.-6-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 6 of 18 Thus, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff "has not been under a disability, as defined in the Social Security Act, from January 31, 2009, through the date of this decision...."25 Standard of Review Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the court has the "power to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner...." The court "properly affirms the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits if it is supported by substantial evidence and based on the application of correct legal standards." Sandgathe v. Chater, 108 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 1997). "Substantial evidence is'more than a mere scintilla but less than a preponderance; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’" Id. (quoting Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 1995)). "‘To determine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, [the court] review[s] the administrative record as a whole, weighing both the evidence that supports and that which detracts from the ALJ’s conclu-sion.’" Id. (quoting Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1039). If the evidence is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the court must uphold the Commissioner’s decision. Id. But, the Commissioner’s decision cannot be affirmed "‘simply by isolating a specific quantum of supporting evidence.’" Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999)). 25 Admin. Rec. at 29.-7-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 7 of 18 Discussion Plaintiff first argues that the ALJ erred as to Dr. Hrin’s opinion. On December 30 and 31, 2013, Skip Hrin, Psy.D., did a neuropsychological evaluation of plaintiff. Dr. Hrin opined that plaintiff’s intellectual functioning was in the Borderline range. There were significant processing deficits across all domains, as well [as] deficits in all attention capacities, both towards novel informa-tion and "overlearned" tasks. Executive Functioning perfor-mances were consistent in that initiation of task strategies was defic[ient]. His performance produced an Executive Dysfunction profile, which generally involves disruptions in task-oriented behaviors. Such executive control is responsible for adjusting behavior to reconcile environmental changes with goals for effective behavior. Executive dysfunction, particularly in working memory capacity, may also lead to varying degrees of emotional dysregulation, which can manifest as chronic depression, anxiety, or hyper emotionality. Instructional strategies designed to remediate these weaknesses should provide him with some opportunities for success. Problems tracking information, shifting attention to relevant stimuli, maintaining attention and inhibiting action all contribute to an attentional system that does not respond well to variability. Consistent, structured, practiced tasks are best for Iven. Novel or variable tasks will likely require oversight and supervision. It seems he does better in convergent situations (one correct answer; either/or) versus divergent situations where one is asked to imagine an answer (e.g., "what can you use a paper clip for"). Consideration to how questions/requests are phrased will greatly impact his chance for success. It will be most helpful for Iven to have questions/requests [be] simple, straightforward and concrete versus something that requires inference, prediction, or abstract reasoning.-8-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 8 of 18 Iven seems to be "prompt dependent" in his performance. Both cognitive and attentional deficits contribute to difficulty for him to initiate and maintain goal-directed behaviors; therefore, an external source (guidance/support) is necessary for him at least until mastery of a task is achieved. Even in situations of task mastery it is imagined that Iven will require redirection at times. Significant emotional difficulties and disorders of thinking appear present for Iven. His history supports the presence of depressive spectrum disorders. Suicidal ideation is reported and immediate evaluation and monitoring are recommended. Disordered thinking and/or the presence of hallucinations are also reported. It need be pointed out that difficulty with emotional control is often analogous with difficulty controlling or directing internal dialogue. The timing of their emergence is curious (around the time of his TBI) and further evaluation is appropriate. On a positive note, Iven lives semi-independently; cares for his children and demonstrated that he can operate adequately within heavily structured settings. He also exhibited an ability to learn information through repetition. Iven also appears to have substantial interest in making changes in his life. He acknowl-edges the presence of problems and a perception of the need for help in dealing with these problems. Surely these traits and skills can be utilized to his advantage in his life – and future vocational settings as well.[26] Dr. Hrin was an examining physician. The ALJ only gave Dr. Hrin’s opinion some weight because she determined that his opinion was not entitled to controlling weight.27 "If a treating or examining physician’s medical opinion is supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, 26 Admin. Rec. at 438-439. 27 Admin. Rec. at 28.-9-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 9 of 18 that physician’s opinion is given controlling weight." Herrera v. Astrue, Case No. CV–11–2460–PHX–LOA, 2013 WL 68611, at *6 (D. Ariz. Jan. 7, 2013). An ALJ must "provide specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for not giving controlling weight to the opinion[]" of an examining physician. Johnson v. Colvin, 949 F. Supp. 2d 1025, 1036 (S.D. Cal. 2013). The ALJ determined that Dr. Hrin’s opinion was not entitled to controlling weight because he "did not discuss or contemplate the interaction of the claimant’s polysubstance [use] and their effects on his cognitive functioning...."28 The ALJ also noted that Dr. Hrin had stated that plaintiff had some positive abilities and traits and that "surely these traits and skills can be utilized to his advantage in life – and future vocational settings as well."29 Plaintiff argues that these were not specific and legitimate reasons. First, as to Dr. Hrin’s lack of discussion of plaintiff’s polysubstance use, defendant argues that this was a legitimate reason because the ALJ may consider whether an opinion is inconsistent. See Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1464 (9th Cir. 1996) (ALJ may reject an opinion that is internally inconsistent). But, Dr. Hrin’s opinion was not internally inconsistent. Moreover, contrary to the ALJ’s finding, Dr. Hrin did discuss plaintiff’s polysubstance use. Dr. Hrin "acknowledge[d] that Iven was taking prescribed opiate-based medications" and noted that "[r]esearch has shown that opiate-based pain medications affect 28 Admin. Rec. at 27. 29 Admin. Rec. at 27 (citation omitted).-10-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 10 of 18 neuropsychological variables, particularly processing speed. Therefore the following results may overestimate his deficits. That being said, [the] results are considered a reliable and valid estimate of Iven’s current level of functioning."30 The ALJ’s first reason for not giving Dr. Hrin’s opinion controlling weight was not legitimate. As for Dr. Hrin’s statement about plaintiff’s positive traits and abilities, defendant argues that the ALJ’s reliance on this statement was akin to the ALJ finding Dr. Hrin’s opinion inconsistent with plaintiff’s reported daily activities, which is a legitimate reason for rejecting a medical source’s opinion. See Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 601 (9th Cir. 1999) (ALJ may reject a medical opinion that is inconsistent with a claimant’s activities). But, the ALJ did not state that she was rejecting Dr. Hrin’s opinion because it was inconsistent with plaintiff’s daily activities. The court may only review "the reasons provided by the ALJ in the disability determination and may not affirm the ALJ on a ground upon which he did not rely." Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1010 (9th Cir. 2014). The ALJ stated that she was not giving Dr. Hrin’s opinion controlling weight because he found that plaintiff had some positive traits By focusing on a single statement by Dr. Hrin, rather than considering the totality of his assessment, which indicated that plaintiff had some significant limitations, the ALJ erred. See Holohan, 246 F.3d at 1207 (ALJ erred by "selectively rel[ying] on some entries in Holohan’s records from San Francisco General 30 Admin. Rec. at 432.-11-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 11 of 18 Hospital and ignor[ing] the many others that indicated continued, severe impairment"). The ALJ also erred as to Dr. Hrin’s opinion because she did not explain what portion of Dr. Hrin’s opinion she was accepting and what portion she was rejecting. The ALJ simply stated that she was giving Dr. Hrin’s opinion "some weight" with no further explanation. "[T]he ALJ’s failure to articulate her reasoning frustrates this [c]ourt’s ability to perform meaningful judicial review." Barrett v. Colvin, Case No. 3:16-CV-05394-DWC, 2016 WL 7426497, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 23, 2016). Plaintiff next argues that the ALJ erred as to Ms. Shea’s opinions. Ms. Shea was a nurse practioner who provided mental health treatment for plaintiff beginning on May 31, 2013. On March 31, 2014, Ms. Shea opined that plaintiff had slight difficulties with asking simple questions or requesting assistance; being aware of normal hazards and taking appropriate precautions; moderate difficulties with accepting instructions and responding appropriately to criticism from supervisors; getting along with coworkers or peers without distracting them or exhibiting behavioral extremes; maintaining socially appropriate behavior; and adhering to basic standards of neatness and cleanliness; marked difficulties with remembering locations and work-like procedures; understanding/remembering/carrying out short and simple instructions; maintaining attention and concentration for extended periods; performing activities within a schedule, maintaining regular attendance, and being punctual within customary tolerances; sustaining an ordinary routine without special-12-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 12 of 18 supervision; making simple work-related decisions; interacting appropriately with the general public; responding appropriately to changes in the work setting; traveling in unfamiliar places or using public transportation; and setting realistic goals or making plans independ-ently of others; and extreme difficulties with understanding/remembering/carrying out detailed instructions; working in coordination with or in proximity to others without being distracted by them; completing a normal workday and workweek without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms; and performing at a consistent pace with a standard number and length of rest periods.31 Ms. Shea also opined that plaintiff would probably miss more than four days of work per month and that he may have difficulty managing his own benefits because of his difficulties with reading and understanding.32 On August 18, 2014, Ms. Shea opined that plaintiff had moderate limitations in his ability to sustain an ordinary routine without special supervision; make simple work-related decisions; get along with coworkers or peers without distracting them or exhibiting behavioral extremes; maintain socially appropriate behavior and adhere to basic standards of neatness and cleanliness; and be aware of normal hazards and take appropriate precautions; marked limitations as to his ability to remember locations and work-like procedures; understand/remember/carry out very short and simple instructions; maintain attention and concentration for extended periods; perform activities without a schedule, 31 Admin. Rec. at 444-446. 32 Admin. Rec. at 445-446.-13-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 13 of 18 maintain regular attendance, and be punctual within customary tolerances; work in coordination with or in proximity to others without being distracted by them; interact appropriately with the general public; ask simple questions or request assistance; accept instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors; and respond appropriately to changes in the work setting; and extreme limitations in his ability to understand/remember/carry out detailed instructions; complete a normal workday and workweek without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms; perform at a consistent pace with a standard number and length of rest periods; travel to unfamiliar places or use public transportation; and set realistic goals or make plans independently of others.33 Ms. Shea also opined that plaintiff would miss more than four days of work per month.34 "Nurse practitioners are considered'other sources.’" Dale v. Colvin, 823 F.3d 941, 943 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a) & (d)(1)). "An ALJ may reject an'other source’ medical opinion... by providing germane reasons that are supported by substantial evidence." Romo v. Colvin, Case No. 14–CV–419–BJR–BAT, 2015 WL 64908, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 5, 2015). The ALJ gave no weight to Ms. Shea’s opinions because "they are contradictory to the medical evidence as a whole and fail to provide objective analysis in their rendering."35 33 Admin. Rec at 487-489. 34 Admin. Rec. at 488. 35 Admin. Rec. at 28.-14-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 14 of 18 The ALJ also noted that "[s]pecifically with the claimant’s documented ongoing use of opiates, marijuana, and Xanax, the undersigned finds Ms. Shea’s assessment of the claimant[’]s mental status less than credible as it is lacking in analysis of how such medications and substances may contribute to his mental state."36 Although these three reasons may have been germane to Ms. Shea’s opinions, plaintiff argues that they are not supported by substantial evidence. As to the first reason, that Ms. Shea’s opinions are contradicted by the medical evidence as a whole, plaintiff points out that Ms. Shea was the only provider specifically treating his mental impairments and that her notes consistently show abnormalities in mood and memory.37 Plaintiff also argues that even Dr. Campbell’s evaluation contained findings that supported Ms. Shea’s opinions, such as the fact that plaintiff was sloppily groomed, remembered none of three words after five minutes without prompting, could not do a simple multiplication problem, spelled "world" incorrectly, performed serial sevens slowly with one error, and had poor insight.38 The ALJ’s first reason was supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff’s providers at the Algone Center, who were managing plaintiff’s pain in 2013,39 consistently found that 36 Admin. Rec. at 27. 37 Admin. Rec. at 397, 399, 403, 405, 410, 420, 449, 451. 38 Admin. Rec. at 393. 39 Admin. Rec. at 364-389.-15-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 15 of 18 he was "[o]riented x3 with appropriate mood and affect, able to articulate well with normal speech/language, rate, volume and coherence and attention span and ability to concentrate are normal."40 These findings contradict Ms. Shea’s opinions. As to the second reason, that Ms. Shea failed to provide objective analysis, plaintiff points out that in her August 2014 opinion, Ms. Shea explained that plaintiff had "better long-term memory than short-term", "has difficulty paying attention when in session with daughters, client has missed appointments," "can only be away from home for a few hours before becoming panicky[,]" and "expresses irritability [with] children & others."41 Plaintiff also points out that Ms. Shea referred to Dr. Hrin’s neuropysch evaluation,42 which he contends indicates that she relied in part on Dr. Hrin’s testing and observations to provide an objective basis for her opinion. The ALJ’s second reason for rejecting Ms. Shea’s opinions was not supported by substantial evidence as to Ms. Shea’s August 2014 opinion. Ms. Shea provided an objective analysis in support of this opinion. As for the ALJ’s criticism that Ms. Shea did not analyze how plaintiff’s pain medications may contribute to his mental state, this reason was supported. Although Ms. Shea does mention plaintiff’s use of polysubstance in her August 2014 opinion when she 40 Admin. Rec. at 364, 366, 368, 370, 372, 375, 377. 41 Admin. Rec. at 487-488. 42 Admin. Rec. at 487-488.-16-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 16 of 18 stated that substance abuse had "very little" impact on plaintiff’s limitations,43 this is a conclusory statement, not an analysis. The ALJ did not err in rejecting Ms. Shea’s opinions. The ALJ must give at least one germane reason for discounting the opinion of an "other source." Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, the ALJ gave two reasons that were germane and that were supported by substantial evidence. Because the ALJ erred as to Dr. Hrin’s opinion, the court must decide whether to remand for further proceedings or for an award of benefits. The court follows a three-step analysis to determine whether a remand for an award of benefits would be appropriate. "First, [the court] must conclude that'the ALJ has failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, whether claimant testimony or medical opinion.’" Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 495 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1020). "Second, [the court] must conclude that'the record has been fully developed and further administrative proceedings would serve no useful purpose.’" Id. (quoting Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1020). "Where there is conflicting evidence, and not all essential factual issues have been resolved, a remand for an award of benefits is inappropriate." Treichler v. Comm’r of Social Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2014). "Third, [the court] must conclude that'if the improperly discredited evidence were credited as true, the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled on remand.’" Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 495 (quoting Garrison, 759 F.3d 43 Admin. Rec. at 489.-17-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 17 of 18 at 1021). But, "even if all three requirements are met, [the court] retain[s]'flexibility’ in determining the appropriate remedy" and "may remand on an open record for further proceedings'when the record as a whole creates serious doubt as to whether the claimant is, in fact, disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act.’" Id. (quoting Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1021). Plaintiff argues that if the ALJ erred as to Dr. Hrin’s opinion, a remand for an award of benefits would be appropriate because he would likely be disabled if Dr. Hrin’s opinion were credited as true. But, the court cannot remand for an award of benefits if it is likely that plaintiff would be disabled. The court may only remand for an award of benefits if the ALJ would be required to find plaintiff disabled. Here, there is no evidence in the record that someone with the limitations Dr. Hrin assessed would be disabled. Because it is not clear that the ALJ would be required to find plaintiff disabled if Dr. Hrin’s opinion were credited as true, a remand for further proceedings is appropriate. Conclusion The Commissioner’s decision is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings. DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 3rd day of May, 2017./s/H. Russel Holland United States District Judge-18-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 24 Filed 05/03/17 Page 18 of 18

JUDGMENT: Commissioner's decision is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 5/3/17.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA IVEN TOENNIS, Plaintiff, Case Number 3:16-cv-00246-HRH v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant. JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE JURY VERDICT. This action came before the court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict. XX DECISION BY COURT. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: THAT the Commissioner's decision is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings. APPROVED: s/H. Russel Holland H. Russel Holland United States District Judge Date: May 3, 2017 NOTE: Award of prejudgment interest, costs and attorney's fees are governed Lesley K. Allen by D.Ak. LR 54.1, 54.3, and 58.1. Clerk of Court [Jmt2-Basic-rev. 1-13-16} Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 25 Filed 05/03/17 Page 1 of 1

MOTION for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C Sect. 2412 by Iven Toennis.

HOWARD D. OLINSKY, Esq. New York No. 2044865 Attorney for Plaintiff Admitted Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State Street, Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Telephone: (315) 701-5780 Fax: (315) 701-5781 Email: fedctgroup@windisability.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA IVEN TOENNIS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00246-HRH v-COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.-----------------------------------------------------------Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 COMES NOW Plaintiff, by his attorney, Howard D. Olinsky, moves the court for an award to be paid by the Defendant under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 USCS § 2412. Plaintiff may receive an award under the Equal Access to Justice Act because he is the prevailing party, is an individual whose net worth did not exceed two million dollars when the action was filed, and the position of the United States and at the agency was not substantially justified. There are no special circumstances in this case which make an award under the EAJA unjust. Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 26 Filed 08/02/17 Page 1 of 2 This motion is supported by a Declaration of Plaintiff’s attorney, attached time and cost records and an Affidavit and Waiver of Direct Payment by the plaintiff. Executed this July 28, 2017 Respectfully submitted,/s/Howard D. Olinsky Howard D. Olinsky New York Bar # 2044865 Attorney for Plaintiff Admitted Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State Street, Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Phone: (315) 701-5780 Fax: (315) 701-5781 Email: fedctgroup@windisability.com To: Gerald J. Hill, Esq. Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A Seattle, WA 98104-7075 Telephone: (206) 615-2139 Fax: (206) 615-2531 Email: gerald.j.hill@ssa.gov Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 26 Filed 08/02/17 Page 2 of 2

Proposed Order

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA IVEN TOENNIS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00246-HRH-v-COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.-----------------------------------------------------------(Proposed) Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) Before the Court is the Motion of Plaintiff Iven Toennis for award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Based on the pleadings as well as the position of the defendant commissioner, if any, and recognizing the Plaintiff’s waiver of direct payment and assignment of EAJA to his counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that attorney fees, expenses, and costs in the total amount of Six Thousand One Hundred Eighty-Five Dollars and Six Cents ($6,185.06) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) are awarded to Plaintiff. Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). The Court hereby awards EAJA fees, broken down as follows: 1. Plaintiff is awarded $6,165.77 for paralegal and attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); 2. Plaintiff is awarded $19.29 in expenses for Certified Mail for service of Summons and Complaint. If the U.S. Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff’s EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are not subject to offset allowed under the Department of the Treasury’s Offset Program (TOPS), then the check for EAJA fees, expenses, and costs shall be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney, Paul Eaglin. Whether the check is made payable to Plaintiff or to Howard D. Olinsky, the check shall be mailed to Howard D. Olinsky at the following address: 300 South State Street Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 26-1 Filed 08/02/17 Page 1 of 2 Suite 420 Syracuse, NY 13202 So ordered. Date: ________________ ______________________________ H. Russell Holland United States District Judge [proposed Order proffer: Howard D. Olinsky; copy to Gerald J. Hill] Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 26-1 Filed 08/02/17 Page 2 of 2

Exhibit A - Total Professional Time

Exhibit A Ledger Toennis, Iven Date  Subject Hours Timekeeper 9/16/2016 Files received, reviewed and processed from referral source for Attorney review 0.6 Gifford, Kyrsten 9/16/2016 Correspondence to Client re: Referral acknowledgment letter 0.2 Gifford, Kyrsten 9/20/2016 Telephone Call with Client re: Completed debt conference call, updated address 0.4 Gifford, Kyrsten 10/17/2016 Review file to determine whether to take case 1 Fecio, Michelle 10/18/2016 FDC prospect packet prepared for Client completion 0.6 Lockwood, Tamica 10/18/2016 Telephone call with Client re: Assistance with In forma pauperis application 0.3 Lockwood, Tamica 10/18/2016 FDC Prospect packet sent via Right Signature for client completion 0.2 Lockwood, Tamica 10/19/2016 Federal court forms returned via Right Signature, review for completion 0.3 Lockwood, Tamica 10/20/2016 Draft complaint, proposed summons, civil cover sheet, and letter to clerk 0.8 Eaglin, Paul B. 10/20/2016 Review motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, approve for filing 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 10/20/2016 Email Initiating case documents to the clerk for filing/docketing 0.1 Smith, Michael P. 10/20/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Complaint 0 Lockwood, Tamica 10/20/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Civil Cover Sheet 0 Lockwood, Tamica 10/20/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Motion for Leave in Forma Pauperis 0 Lockwood, Tamica 10/20/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Unissued summons 0 Lockwood, Tamica 10/21/2016 Federal Court-Accept Letter-New FDC Filing 0.3 Smith, Michael P. 10/25/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Summons issued (notice only) 0 Lockwood, Tamica 10/25/2016 Review Summons Issued (text notice only) 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 10/25/2016 Download, file, save & distribute ECF re: Order directing service, granting IFP 0 Lockwood, Tamica 10/25/2016 Review Order granting In Forma Pauperis status, directing service of process 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 10/31/2016 Received and processed Issued Summons via USPS 0.1 Smith, Michael P. 10/31/2016 Review Summons Issued 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 11/8/2016 Federal Court-Service of Process-Prepare Service packets USAO, OGC, AG 0.6 Callahan, Michelle 11/15/2016 Download, file, save electronic return receipts USAO, OCG and AG 0 Callahan, Michelle 11/16/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: NOA Richard L. Pomeroy 0 Lockwood, Tamica 11/16/2016 Review Notice of appearance Richard L. Pomeroy o/b/o Carolyn Colvin 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 11/21/2016 Combine and file proof of service via CM/ECF 0.3 Callahan, Michelle 11/21/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Docket annotation brief event 0 Lockwood, Tamica 11/21/2016 Review Docket annotation brief filing event 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 11/21/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Summons returned executed 0 Lockwood, Tamica 11/21/2016 Review Summons executed, record answer due date for monitoring 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 11/21/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: SS scheduling order 0 Lockwood, Tamica 11/21/2016 Review Social Security scheduling order, calendar deadlines on task pad 0.3 Eaglin, Paul B. 12/30/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: NOA Jeffrey R. McClain 0 Lockwood, Tamica 12/30/2016 Review Notice of appearance Jeffrey R. McClain o/b/o Carolyn W. Colvin 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 1/13/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Answer to complaint 0 Lockwood, Tamica 1/13/2017 Review Answer to complaint 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 1/16/2017 Preliminary review of transcript-assign Attorney writer 0.5 Eaglin, Paul B. 1/16/2017 Download, file and save federal court transcript in nine (9) parts 0.3 Lockwood, Tamica 1/16/2017 Combine, OCR, and live bookmark federal court transcript (505 pages) 0.5 Lockwood, Tamica 35.80 (Type = Time) and (Category = Federal Court)    Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 26-2 Filed 08/02/17 Page 2 of 4 Date  Subject Hours Timekeeper 2/3/2017 Review certified administrative record and take notes 505pgs 3 Fecio, Michelle 2/6/2017 Continue reviewing CAR, taking notes and organizing facts 2.1 Fecio, Michelle 2/9/2017 Drafting procedural section, drafting facts 4.4 Fecio, Michelle 2/10/2017 Reseach issues and drafting argument 6.5 Fecio, Michelle 2/10/2017 Senior Attorney review draft brief, suggest edits 0.9 Eaglin, Paul B. 2/13/2017 Implement suggested edits, finalize and file brief (n/c for filing) 0.8 Fecio, Michelle 2/13/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Docket Annotation Berryhill 0 Lockwood, Tamica 2/13/2017 Review Docket annotation Berryhill substituted for Colvin 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 2/13/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Motion to remand 0 Lockwood, Tamica 3/1/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: NOA Gerald Hill 0 Lockwood, Tamica 3/1/2017 Review Notice of appearance Gerald J. Hill o/b/o Berryhill 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 3/15/2017 Emails with Opposing Counsel re: Defendant first extension request 0.2 Smith, Michael P. 3/15/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Motion for extension Defendant-first 0 Lockwood, Tamica 3/15/2017 Review Defendant's First motion for extension to file brief 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 3/15/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Declaration re: Motion for extension 0 Lockwood, Tamica 3/15/2017 Review Declaration re: Motion for first extension to file brief 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 3/16/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Order granting extension request 0 Lockwood, Tamica 3/16/2017 Review order granting Defendant's extension request, update task pad 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 3/29/2017 Download, file, save & distribute ECF re: Motion for extension Defendant-second 0 Lockwood, Tamica 3/29/2017 Review Defendant's Second motion for extension to file brief 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 3/29/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Declaration re: Motion for extension 0 Lockwood, Tamica 3/29/2017 Review Declaration re: Motion for second extension to file brief 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 3/30/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Order granting extension request 0 Lockwood, Tamica 3/30/2017 Review order granting Defendant's second extension request, update task pad 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 3/31/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Response in opposition 0 Lockwood, Tamica 3/31/2017 Review Defendant's response in opposition to motion (13 pages) 0.4 Eaglin, Paul B. 3/31/2017 Assign Attorney writer to access/write reply 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/12/2017 Review CAR, briefs, draft reply brief 2.8 Riley, Nathaniel 4/12/2017 Senior Attorney review draft reply brief, suggest edits 0.4 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/12/2017 Implement suggested edits, finalize and file reply brief (n/c for filing) 0.4 Riley, Nathaniel 4/13/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Reply to response 0 Lockwood, Tamica 4/20/2017 Draft motion for pro hac vice re: Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. 0 Olinsky, Howard D. 4/20/2017 File Motion for Howard D. Olinsky to appear Pro Hac Vice 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/20/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Motion for pro hac vice HDO 0 Lockwood, Tamica 4/24/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Order granting Pro Hac Vice 0 Lockwood, Tamica 4/24/2017 Review Order granting Pro Hac Vice application 0 Olinsky, Howard D. 5/1/2017 Correspondence to Client re: Federal Court-Fully Briefed Case Docs to Client 0 Vincent Wisehoon 5/3/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Order granting motion for remand 0 Lockwood, Tamica 5/3/2017 Review Order granting motion to remand (18 pages) 0.6 Olinsky, Howard D. 5/3/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Judgment 0 Lockwood, Tamica 5/3/2017 Review Judgment in favor of Iven Toennis 0.1 Olinsky, Howard D. 5/8/2017 Correspondence to Client re: FDC Remand 0.2 Callahan, Michelle 5/8/2017 Federal Court-Remand Referral back to Referral Source 0.3 Callahan, Michelle 7/19/2017 EAJA Preparation 1.5 Persse, Shannon 35.80 (Type = Time) and (Category = Federal Court)    Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 26-2 Filed 08/02/17 Page 3 of 4 Date  Subject Hours Timekeeper 7/25/2017 Review Timeslips Finalize EAJA Motion 0.5 Olinsky, Howard D. 7/28/2017 Ready EAJA Narrative, Time Records, Exhibits, Certificate. File per Local Rule 0.9 Persse, Shannon 35.80 (Type = Time) and (Category = Federal Court)    Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 26-2 Filed 08/02/17 Page 4 of 4

Exhibit B - Attorney Time

Exhibit B Ledger Toennis, Iven Date  Subject Hours Timekeeper 10/17/2016 Review file to determine whether to take case 1 Fecio, Michelle 10/20/2016 Draft complaint, proposed summons, civil cover sheet, and letter to clerk 0.8 Eaglin, Paul B. 10/20/2016 Review motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, approve for filing 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 10/25/2016 Review Summons Issued (text notice only) 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 10/25/2016 Review Order granting In Forma Pauperis status, directing service of process 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 10/31/2016 Review Summons Issued 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 11/16/2016 Review Notice of appearance Richard L. Pomeroy o/b/o Carolyn Colvin 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 11/21/2016 Review Docket annotation brief filing event 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 11/21/2016 Review Summons executed, record answer due date for monitoring 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 11/21/2016 Review Social Security scheduling order, calendar deadlines on task pad 0.3 Eaglin, Paul B. 12/30/2016 Review Notice of appearance Jeffrey R. McClain o/b/o Carolyn W. Colvin 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 1/13/2017 Review Answer to complaint 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 1/16/2017 Preliminary review of transcript-assign Attorney writer 0.5 Eaglin, Paul B. 2/3/2017 Review certified administrative record and take notes 505pgs 3 Fecio, Michelle 2/6/2017 Continue reviewing CAR, taking notes and organizing facts 2.1 Fecio, Michelle 2/9/2017 Drafting procedural section, drafting facts 4.4 Fecio, Michelle 2/10/2017 Reseach issues and drafting argument 6.5 Fecio, Michelle 2/10/2017 Senior Attorney review draft brief, suggest edits 0.9 Eaglin, Paul B. 2/13/2017 Implement suggested edits, finalize and file brief (n/c for filing) 0.8 Fecio, Michelle 2/13/2017 Review Docket annotation Berryhill substituted for Colvin 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 3/1/2017 Review Notice of appearance Gerald J. Hill o/b/o Berryhill 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 3/15/2017 Review Defendant's First motion for extension to file brief 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 3/15/2017 Review Declaration re: Motion for first extension to file brief 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 3/16/2017 Review order granting Defendant's extension request, update task pad 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 3/29/2017 Review Defendant's Second motion for extension to file brief 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 3/29/2017 Review Declaration re: Motion for second extension to file brief 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 3/30/2017 Review order granting Defendant's second extension request, update task pad 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 3/31/2017 Review Defendant's response in opposition to motion (13 pages) 0.4 Eaglin, Paul B. 3/31/2017 Assign Attorney writer to access/write reply 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/12/2017 Review CAR, briefs, draft reply brief 2.8 Riley, Nathaniel 4/12/2017 Senior Attorney review draft reply brief, suggest edits 0.4 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/12/2017 Implement suggested edits, finalize and file reply brief (n/c for filing) 0.4 Riley, Nathaniel 4/20/2017 Draft motion for pro hac vice re: Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. 0 Olinsky, Howard D. 4/24/2017 Review Order granting Pro Hac Vice application 0 Olinsky, Howard D. 5/3/2017 Review Order granting motion to remand (18 pages) 0.6 Olinsky, Howard D. 5/3/2017 Review Judgment in favor of Iven Toennis 0.1 Olinsky, Howard D. 7/25/2017 Review Timeslips Finalize EAJA Motion 0.5 Olinsky, Howard D. 27.90 (Type = Time) and (Category = Federal Court) and ((Timekeeper = Eaglin, Paul B.) or (Timekeeper = Fecio, Michelle) or (Timekee...    Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 26-3 Filed 08/02/17 Page 2 of 2

Exhibit C - Paralegal Time

Exhibit C Ledger Toennis, Iven Date  Subject Hours Timekeeper 9/16/2016 Files received, reviewed and processed from referral source for Attorney review 0.6 Gifford, Kyrsten 9/16/2016 Correspondence to Client re: Referral acknowledgment letter 0.2 Gifford, Kyrsten 9/20/2016 Telephone Call with Client re: Completed debt conference call, updated address 0.4 Gifford, Kyrsten 10/18/2016 FDC prospect packet prepared for Client completion 0.6 Lockwood, Tamica 10/18/2016 Telephone call with Client re: Assistance with In forma pauperis application 0.3 Lockwood, Tamica 10/18/2016 FDC Prospect packet sent via Right Signature for client completion 0.2 Lockwood, Tamica 10/19/2016 Federal court forms returned via Right Signature, review for completion 0.3 Lockwood, Tamica 10/20/2016 Email Initiating case documents to the clerk for filing/docketing 0.1 Smith, Michael P. 10/20/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Complaint 0 Lockwood, Tamica 10/20/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Civil Cover Sheet 0 Lockwood, Tamica 10/20/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Motion for Leave in Forma Pauperis 0 Lockwood, Tamica 10/20/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Unissued summons 0 Lockwood, Tamica 10/21/2016 Federal Court-Accept Letter-New FDC Filing 0.3 Smith, Michael P. 10/25/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Summons issued (notice only) 0 Lockwood, Tamica 10/25/2016 Download, file, save & distribute ECF re: Order directing service, granting IFP 0 Lockwood, Tamica 10/31/2016 Received and processed Issued Summons via USPS 0.1 Smith, Michael P. 11/8/2016 Federal Court-Service of Process-Prepare Service packets USAO, OGC, AG 0.6 Callahan, Michelle 11/15/2016 Download, file, save electronic return receipts USAO, OCG and AG 0 Callahan, Michelle 11/16/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: NOA Richard L. Pomeroy 0 Lockwood, Tamica 11/21/2016 Combine and file proof of service via CM/ECF 0.3 Callahan, Michelle 11/21/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Docket annotation brief event 0 Lockwood, Tamica 11/21/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Summons returned executed 0 Lockwood, Tamica 11/21/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: SS scheduling order 0 Lockwood, Tamica 12/30/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: NOA Jeffrey R. McClain 0 Lockwood, Tamica 1/13/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Answer to complaint 0 Lockwood, Tamica 1/16/2017 Download, file and save federal court transcript in nine (9) parts 0.3 Lockwood, Tamica 1/16/2017 Combine, OCR, and live bookmark federal court transcript (505 pages) 0.5 Lockwood, Tamica 2/13/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Docket Annotation Berryhill 0 Lockwood, Tamica 2/13/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Motion to remand 0 Lockwood, Tamica 3/1/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: NOA Gerald Hill 0 Lockwood, Tamica 3/15/2017 Emails with Opposing Counsel re: Defendant first extension request 0.2 Smith, Michael P. 3/15/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Motion for extension Defendant-first 0 Lockwood, Tamica 3/15/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Declaration re: Motion for extension 0 Lockwood, Tamica 3/16/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Order granting extension request 0 Lockwood, Tamica 3/29/2017 Download, file, save & distribute ECF re: Motion for extension Defendant-second 0 Lockwood, Tamica 3/29/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Declaration re: Motion for extension 0 Lockwood, Tamica 3/30/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Order granting extension request 0 Lockwood, Tamica 3/31/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Response in opposition 0 Lockwood, Tamica 4/13/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Reply to response 0 Lockwood, Tamica 4/20/2017 File Motion for Howard D. Olinsky to appear Pro Hac Vice 0 Callahan, Michelle 7.90 (Type = Time) and (Category = Federal Court) and ((Timekeeper = Callahan, Michelle) or (Timekeeper = Gifford, Kyrsten) or (Tim...    Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 26-4 Filed 08/02/17 Page 2 of 3 Date  Subject Hours Timekeeper 4/20/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Motion for pro hac vice HDO 0 Lockwood, Tamica 4/24/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Order granting Pro Hac Vice 0 Lockwood, Tamica 5/1/2017 Correspondence to Client re: Federal Court-Fully Briefed Case Docs to Client 0 Vincent Wisehoon 5/3/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Order granting motion for remand 0 Lockwood, Tamica 5/3/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Judgment 0 Lockwood, Tamica 5/8/2017 Correspondence to Client re: FDC Remand 0.2 Callahan, Michelle 5/8/2017 Federal Court-Remand Referral back to Referral Source 0.3 Callahan, Michelle 7/19/2017 EAJA Preparation 1.5 Persse, Shannon 7/28/2017 Ready EAJA Narrative, Time Records, Exhibits, Certificate. File per Local Rule 0.9 Persse, Shannon 7.90 (Type = Time) and (Category = Federal Court) and ((Timekeeper = Callahan, Michelle) or (Timekeeper = Gifford, Kyrsten) or (Tim...    Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 26-4 Filed 08/02/17 Page 3 of 3

Exhibit D - Expenses

Exhibit D Ledger Toennis, Iven Date  Subject Amount Timekeeper 11/8/2016 Certified Mail Expense Summons& Complaint packets to Defendant's offices $19.29 Callahan, Michelle $19.29 $19.29 (Category = FC Expense-)    Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 26-5 Filed 08/02/17 Page 2 of 2

Exhibit E - Fee Agreement

Exhibit E FEE AGREEMENT-FEDERAL COURT SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL 1. SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION: I hereby employ the attorneys at Olinsky Law Group ("OLG" or "my federal court attorney") to represent me during a federal court review of my Social Security case. The scope of representation consists of appealing a final decision that I am not disabled, which was made by the Social Security Administration ("SSA"), to a United States District Court. Representation may also include appealing an unfavorable decision from a United States District Court to a United States Court of Appeals; however an appeal to a United States Court of Appeals is at the discretion of my federal court attorney. References to "federal court" in this agreement will include representation before a United States Court of Appeals if my case is appealed to that court. 2. ATTORNEY’S FEE: I understand that if my federal court attorney wins my case in federal court, which means that either my case is remanded to the SSA for further proceedings pursuant to sentence 4 or sentence 6 of § 205(g) of the Social Security Act and/or the federal court enters a directed finding that I am disabled, my federal court attorney will petition for an award of attorney fees for work performed at the federal court(s) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). I understand that an EAJA award is paid by the government, does not come from my back benefits, and any award must be approved by the federal court. I hereby assign any court-awarded EAJA attorney fees to my federal court attorney. I agree that any such payment belongs to my federal court attorney. I authorize my federal court attorney to settle the amount of any EAJA fee using his or her professional judgment. I agree to cooperate in any way that I can so that my federal court attorney’s full fee is authorized. If my federal court attorney receives an EAJA check made payable to me, I hereby explicitly give authority to my federal attorney to endorse the check with my name and deposit it in my federal court attorney’s general office account. I hereby state that my net worth is less than $2,000,000.00. I understand that my federal court attorney may receive the EAJA award as his or her sole compensation for representing me in court. However, I understand that my federal court attorney also has the right to ask the court to award any remaining balance of 25% of my past-due benefits ("406(b) fees") for representing me in federal court. My federal court attorney has this right if the representative, who represents me during remand proceedings, does not collect the full 25% of my past-due benefits during a remand proceeding; and also if (1) my case is remanded pursuant to sentence 6 of § 205(g) of the Social Security Act; or (2) my case is remanded pursuant to sentence 4 of § 205(g) of the Social Security Act and my federal court attorney is unable to collect the authorized EAJA award due to any unpaid federal debt that I may have at the conclusion of the federal case; or if I failed to effectively assign the EAJA award to my federal court attorney; or at the discretion of my federal court attorney. I understand that if the court awards my federal court attorney a fee out of my past-due benefits and also awards an EAJA fee for that same work, my federal court attorney must refund the smaller fee to me. I understand that the SSA will withhold my past-due benefits and will send any approved fee to my federal court attorney. If SSA, through error, fails to withhold my federal court attorney’s fee and pays the legal fee to me by mistake (which sometimes happens), I will pay my federal court attorney promptly from the back benefits I receive. If my retroactive payment is released in installments, I agree that I will pay the entire authorized federal court attorney’s fee from the first installment. I understand that the total fee could amount to many thousands of dollars. I understand that my federal court attorney may seek the maximum fee this contract allows under the law. My federal court attorney does not promise to minimize either the EAJA or 406(b) fees he or she seeks and/or receives. Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 26-6 Filed 08/02/17 Page 2 of 3 I understand that if my case loses in federal court, which means that the federal court affirms the decision of the SSA that I am not disabled, my federal court attorney is not entitled to a fee for his or her time spent representing me in federal court. 3. CONSENT TO EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION: I agree that the OLG and any representative(s) that represented me before SSA for the case that is being appealed to federal court may share (1) my contact information, (2) information regarding my case in federal court, including documents filed in court, (3) my SSA exhibit file including all my medical records, and (4) information regarding the status of any remand proceedings. I agree that if a federal court remands my case, the OLG may refer my case to Myler Disability* for possible representation on remand. I agree that the OLG may share (1) my contact information, (2) information regarding my federal court case, including documents filed in court, (3) my SSA exhibit file including all my medical records, and (4) information regarding the status of any remand proceedings, with Myler Disability*. I acknowledge that the United States District Court will issue a written decision on my case, and that decision is a matter of public record which may be published on the internet by case reporting services. 4. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT AND CONSENT TO PROVIDE UPDATED CONTACT INFORMATION: This agreement terminates at the option of my federal court attorney if we lose at the United States District Court. My federal court attorney will mail me a copy of the court’s final decision at the last address I provide my federal court attorney. I agree to inform my federal court attorney each time I change my mailing address and/or telephone number. 5. I HAVE NOT BEEN PROMISED THAT I WILL WIN: My federal court attorney has not promised that I will win my case. I recognize that I may lose my case. I am aware that a federal court may take several years to decide my case. This agreement supersedes and replaces any previous fee agreement I may have signed with any attorney for representation at Federal Court. It does not supersede or replace any fee agreement made for representation before the Social Security Administration. Dated: October 18, 2016 Signature: __________________________________ Claimant Name: Iven Toennis Claimant Social Security Number: Dated: __________ Signature: ___________________________________ Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 26-6 Filed 08/02/17 Page 3 of 3

Exhibit F - Affidavit & Waiver

Exhibit F UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA ({[ERROR]} DIVISION)--------------------------------------------------------------IVEN TOENNIS, AFFIRMATION AND WAIVER OF DIRECT PAYMENT Plaintiff, OF EAJA FEES v. Civil Action No.: _________________ CAROLYN W. COLVIN, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.---------------------------------------------------------------Iven Toennis, hereby states the following: 1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter. 2. That I have retained Olinsky Law Group as my attorney for the above-captioned matter. 3. At the time that this action was begun, my net worth was less than $2,000,000.00. 4. If my case is remanded by the Federal Court, either by stipulation or order, my attorney may file for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). I understand that the EAJA fees are paid by the Federal Government and do not come from any back benefits owed to me by the Social Security Administration. 5. I hereby agree to waive direct payment of the EAJA fees and assign said fees to be paid directly to my attorney. 6. I understand that my attorney may still petition the Administration for legal fees for his or her work before the Administration that will be paid from my back benefits. As the Plaintiff in this case, I hereby declare and affirm under penalty of perjury that the information above is true and correct. Executed on October 18, 2016. __________________________ Iven Toennis Plaintiff Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 26-7 Filed 08/02/17 Page 2 of 2

DECLARATION of re [26] MOTION for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C Sect. 2412 by Iven Toennis.

HOWARD D. OLINSKY, Esq. New York No. 2044865 Attorney for Plaintiff Admitted Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State Street, Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Telephone: (315) 701-5780 Fax: (315) 701-5781 Email: fedctgroup@windisability.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA IVEN TOENNIS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00246-HRH-v-COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.-----------------------------------------------------------Attorney’s Affirmation In Support Of Fees Pursuant To the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 ________________________________________ STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF ONONDAGA) ss: Howard D. Olinsky, affirms and declares as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New York and admitted to the District of Alaska Federal Court Pro Hac Vice and I am the plaintiff’s attorney in this matter. 2. I make this affirmation knowing that the Court will rely upon it assessing any awards under the Equal Access to Justice Act disposed of under 28 USCS § 2412. 3. There are no special circumstances in this case which make an award under the EAJA unjust. Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 27 Filed 08/02/17 Page 1 of 3 4. The Court ordered on May 3, 2017 that the above-entitled case be remanded for further proceedings, under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 5. For the Equal Access to Justice Act, I am requesting an hourly rate of $192.68 for attorney time. See generally, http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000039 U.S.C.A 9th Circuit EAJA Table. If attorney fees are calculated at this rate for 27.9 hours of work performed, they total $5,375.77. 6. I am also requesting $100.00 per hour for 7.9 hours of paralegal time equaling $790.00. I am requesting $6,165.77 for Counsel Fees which includes both attorney and paralegal time. 7. The time accounting is presented to the court in two fashions. The total compensable time spent by all professional staff (Exhibit A); the total compensable time spent by all attorneys (Exhibit B); the total compensable time spent by paralegals (Exhibit C). The attorneys involved in this case are as follows: Paul B. Eaglin, Esq., Howard D. Olinsky, Esq., Michelle Fecio, Esq., and Nathaniel V. Riley, Esq. The paralegals involved in working on this case are as follows: Shannon Persse, Michelle Callahan, Kyrsten Gifford, Michael Smith, Vincent Wisehoon, and Tamica Lockwood. 8. I am requesting reimbursement of expenses in the amount $19.29 for Certified Mail for service of the summons and complaint as shown in Exhibit D. 9. All services on this case were rendered by your affiant and my professional staff, unless specifically noted otherwise. The attached records were created and stored in the firms Prevail Database, and are printed out and attached. The itemized time represents hours spent preparing and handling this case for U.S. District Court. Clerical time is not included in this petition or has been zeroed out. 10. Attached is the Fee Agreement duly executed by the plaintiff (Exhibit E). Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 27 Filed 08/02/17 Page 2 of 3 Waiver of Direct Payment of EAJA Fees 11. Attached is an Affidavit and Waiver of Direct Payment duly executed by the plaintiff (Exhibit F). With this Waiver, if Plaintiff owes a debt that qualifies under the Treasury Offset Program (31 USCS § 3716), any payment shall be made payable to the Plaintiff and delivered to the Plaintiff’s attorney. If the United States Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff owes no debt subject to offset, the government will pay such fees directly to the Plaintiff’s attorney. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (U.S. 2010). Executed this July 28, 2017 Respectfully submitted,/s/Howard D. Olinsky Howard D. Olinsky New York Bar # 2044865 Attorney for Plaintiff Admitted Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State Street, Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Phone: (315) 701-5780 Email: fedctgroup@windisability.com To: Gerald J. Hill, Esq. Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A Seattle, WA 98104-7075 Telephone: (206) 615-2139 Fax: (206) 615-2531 Email: gerald.j.hill@ssa.gov Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 27 Filed 08/02/17 Page 3 of 3

Memorandum in Support

HOWARD D. OLINSKY, Esq. New York No. 2044865 Attorney for Plaintiff Admitted Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State Street, Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Telephone: (315) 701-5780 Fax: (315) 701-5781 Email: fedctgroup@windisability.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA IVEN TOENNIS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00246-HRH-v-COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.-----------------------------------------------------------Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Petition for Counsel Fee Allowance Under Equal Access to Justice Act 1. This is a memorandum in support of a petition for an award of Counsel Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 USCS § 2412 "EAJA." 2. An EAJA award is available to a "prevailing party" in a case against the Federal Government, including Social Security cases, in the following instances: (a) When and if the plaintiff actually "prevails"; (b) The Government’s position in litigation is "not substantially justified"; (c) Plaintiff is a party whose net assets are worth less than two million dollars; and Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 27-1 Filed 08/02/17 Page 1 of 3 (d) The case has concluded with a "final order" which is non-appealable, or will not be appealed. 3. Addressing these elements in reverse order, it is clear that the Plaintiff has met the burden necessary to receive EAJA fees. (a) Plaintiff’s net worth did not exceed $2,000,000.00 when this action was filed. (b) After service of the summons and complaint and submission of a brief by the both parties, District Judge Hon. H. Russell Holland signed an Order on May 3, 2017 remanding this matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (c) Judgment was entered on May 3, 2017. The Judgment has not been appealed. (d) Plaintiff has prevailed because the District Court remanded the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1993) 4. The commissioner was not substantially justified. As the U. S. Supreme Court has held, "the required'not substantially justified’ allegation imposes no proof burden on the fee applicant. It is, as its text conveys, nothing more than an allegation or pleading requirement. The burden of establishing'that the position of the United States was substantially justified’ … must be shouldered by the Government." Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U. S. 401, 414 (2004). While the fee applicant such as Plaintiff is required to "show" three of the four elements—prevailing party status, financial eligibility, and amount sought—Plaintiff need only "to allege" that the position of the government is not substantially justified. Id. WHEREFORE, because all four elements of an allowable application for EAJA fees have been proven or alleged, petitioner humbly prays that the Court issue an order: Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 27-1 Filed 08/02/17 Page 2 of 3 1. Awarding an Equal Access to Justice Act Counsel Fee for $6,165.77; and 2. If the Plaintiff has no debt registered with the Department of Treasury subject to offset that the fees be made payable to the attorney; and 3. Awarding Expenses in the amount of $19.29. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this July 28, 2017 Respectfully submitted,/s/Howard D. Olinsky Howard D. Olinsky New York Bar # 2044865 Attorney for Plaintiff Admitted Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State Street, Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Phone: (315) 701-5780 Email: fedctgroup@windisability.com To: Gerald J. Hill, Esq. Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A Seattle, WA 98104-7075 Telephone: (206) 615-2139 Fax: (206) 615-2531 Email: gerald.j.hill@ssa.gov Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 27-1 Filed 08/02/17 Page 3 of 3

Certificate of Service

HOWARD D. OLINSKY, Esq. New York No. 2044865 Attorney for Plaintiff Admitted Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State Street, Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Telephone: (315) 701-5780 Fax: (315) 701-5781 Email: fedct@windisability.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA IVEN TOENNIS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00246-HRH-v-COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.-----------------------------------------------------------CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I have electronically moved for EAJA fees with the Clerk of the District Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to: To: Gerald J. Hill, Esq. Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A Seattle, WA 98104-7075 Telephone: (206) 615-2139 Fax: (206) 615-2531 Email: gerald.j.hill@ssa.gov August 2, 2017/s/Howard D. Olinsky Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 27-2 Filed 08/02/17 Page 1 of 1

ORDER granting [26] Motion for Attorney Fees. Attorney fees, expenses, and costs in the total amount of $6,185.06, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d), are awarded to plaintiff. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 8/29/17.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA IVEN TOENNIS,)) Plaintiff,)) vs.)) NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting) Commissioner of Social Security,) No. 3:16-cv-0246-HRH) Defendant.) _______________________________________) ORDER Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act Before the court is plaintiff Iven Toennis’ Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d),1 filed August 2, 2017. Based on the pleadings as well as the position of the defendant Commissioner, if any,2 and recognizing the plaintiff’s waiver of direct payment and assignment of EAJA fees to his counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that attorney fees, expenses, and costs in the total amount of Six Thousand, One Hundred Eighty-Five Dollars and Six Cents ($6,185.06) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), are awarded to plaintiff. Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). 1 Docket No. 26. 2 No response was filed. Order – Motion for Attorney Fees-1-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 1 of 2 The court hereby awards EAJA fees, broken down as follows: 1. Plaintiff is awarded $6,165.77 for paralegal and attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); and 2. Plaintiff is awarded $19.29 in expenses for certified mail for service of summons and complaint. If the U.S. Department of the Treasury determines that plaintiff’s EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are not subject to offset allowed under the Department of the Treasury’s Offset Program (TOPS), then the check for EAJA fees, expenses, and costs shall be made payable to plaintiff’s attorney, Paul Eaglin. Whether the check is made payable to plaintiff or to Paul Eaglin, the check shall be mailed to Paul Eaglin at the following address: Olinsky Law Group 300 South State Street-Suite 420 Syracuse, NY 13202 SO ORDERED. DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 29th day of August, 2017./s/H. Russel Holland United States District Judge Order – Motion for Attorney Fees-2-Case 3:16-cv-00246-HRH Document 28 Filed 08/29/17 Page 2 of 2

Interested in this case?

Sign up to receive real-time updates
Last full docket sheet refresh: 521 days ago. Refresh now
#
Datesort arrow up
Description
1
10/20/2016
COMPLAINT against Carolyn W. Colvin, filed by Iven Toennis.
1
Exhibit A
1 Attachment
2
10/20/2016
Civil Cover Sheet.
3
10/20/2016
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Iven Toennis.
4
10/20/2016
Unissued summons re Defendant SSA
1
Unissued Summons re Defendant USAG
2
Unissued Summons re Defendant USAO
2 Attachments
5
10/25/2016
ORDER granting 3 Mot for Leave to Proceed IFP; svc to be completed w/i 90 days from filing of cmplt, def has 60 days after receipt of sums & cmplt to respond. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 10/25/16. cc: Finance (Main Document 5 replaced on 10/25/2016) Modified on 10/25/2016 to replace main document & regenerate NEF.
10/25/2016
Summons Issued as to Carolyn W. Colvin, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Text entry; no document attached.)
6
11/16/2016
NOTICE of Appearance by Richard L. Pomeroy on behalf of Carolyn W. Colvin
7
11/21/2016
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Iven Toennis. Carolyn W. Colvin served on 11/14/2016, answer due 1/13/2017.
8
11/21/2016
SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEDULING ORDER: agency record due w/i 60 days of def's appearance; plf's opening brf due w/i 30 days after filing of agency record; def's ans brf due w/i 30 days after svc of plf's opening brf; plf's reply brf due w/i 14 days after svc of def's brf. Modified on 2/13/2017 to create relationship to document #12
11/21/2016
Docket Annotation: For the purpose of tracking the briefing as ordered at docket 8, when filing the Opening Brief the attorney shall file the document using the event Motion Miscellaneous Relief and text in the relief being sought. Responsive filings should be filed using the event Response in Opposition to Motion or Response to Motion (Non-Opposition). The reply, if any, shall be filed using the event Reply to Response to Motion. (Text entry; no document attached.)
9
12/30/2016
NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey R. McClain on behalf of Carolyn W. Colvin
10
01/13/2017
ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Carolyn W. Colvin.
11
01/13/2017
Notice of Lodging Administrative Record
1
Certification Page
2
Court Transcript Index
3
Documents Related to Administrative Process Including Transcript of Oral Hearing, if applicable
4
Payment Documents and Decisions
5
Jurisdictional Documents and Notices
6
Non Disability Related Development
7
Disability Related Development
8
Medical Records
8 Attachments
12
02/13/2017
MOTION for Remand by Iven Toennis.
02/13/2017
Docket Annotation: Nancy A. Berryhill; Acting Commissioner of Social Security, represented by Richard L. Pomeroy & Jeffrey R. McClain substituted for Carolyn W. Colvin (acting Commissioner of Social Security) pursuant to FRCvP 25(d)(1). (Text entry; no document attached.)
13
03/01/2017
NOTICE of Appearance by Gerald J. Hill on behalf of Nancy A. Berryhill
14
03/15/2017
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 12 MOTION for Remand Unopposed by Nancy A. Berryhill.
1
Proposed Order
1 Attachment
15
03/15/2017
DECLARATION of Abiye F. Mariam re 14 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 12 MOTION for Remand Unopposed by Nancy A. Berryhill.
16
03/16/2017
ORDER granting 14 Motion for Extension of Time.
17
03/29/2017
Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Unopposed by Nancy A. Berryhill.
1
Proposed Order
1 Attachment
18
03/29/2017
DECLARATION of Abiye F. Mariam re 17 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Unopposed by Nancy A. Berryhill.
19
03/30/2017
ORDER granting 17 Second Amendment to Scheduling Order. Response due by 3/31/2017, reply brief due by 4/14/2017.
20
03/31/2017
RESPONSE in Opposition re 12 MOTION for Remand filed by Nancy A. Berryhill.
21
04/13/2017
REPLY to Response to Motion re 12 MOTION for Remand filed by Iven Toennis.
22
04/20/2017
MOTION for Leave to Appear as Pro Hac Vice (Non-Resident) Attorney Howard D. Olinsky. (Pro Hac Vice Admission fee $150.00 paid. Receipt number 097--2318842.) by Iven Toennis.
1
Certificate of Good Standing
1 Attachment
23
04/24/2017
ORDER granting [22] Application of Non-Resident Attorney
24
05/03/2017
ORDER granting [12] Motion for Remand. The Commissioner's decision is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 5/3/17.
25
05/03/2017
JUDGMENT: Commissioner's decision is reversed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 5/3/17.
26
08/02/2017
MOTION for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C Sect. 2412 by Iven Toennis.
1
Proposed Order
2
Exhibit A - Total Professional Time
3
Exhibit B - Attorney Time
4
Exhibit C - Paralegal Time
5
Exhibit D - Expenses
6
Exhibit E - Fee Agreement
7
Exhibit F - Affidavit & Waiver
7 Attachments
27
08/02/2017
DECLARATION of re [26] MOTION for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C Sect. 2412 by Iven Toennis.
1
Memorandum in Support
2
Certificate of Service
2 Attachments
28
08/29/2017
ORDER granting [26] Motion for Attorney Fees. Attorney fees, expenses, and costs in the total amount of $6,185.06, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d), are awarded to plaintiff. Signed by Judge H. Russel Holland on 8/29/17.
Would you like this case removed from DocketBird? Request removal.