Jonathon Z. v. Bisignano
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:25-cv-00411
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Jonathon Z. v. Bisignano, Judge Bryan awarded $10,366 in attorney fees to the plaintiff after a successful Social Security disability remand.
Individuals who have won Social Security disability cases remanded by a federal court and are seeking reimbursement of attorney fees from the government under the Equal Access to Justice Act, particularly those whose attorneys practice in higher cost-of-living regions and seek above-statutory hourly rates.
What happened
In Jonathon Z. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (Case No. 25-CV-00411), the plaintiff challenged the government's denial of his Social Security disability benefits. The court previously sent the case back to the Social Security Administration for further review under a provision of federal law that allows courts to remand such cases, which made the plaintiff a 'prevailing party' entitled to seek attorney fees.
The plaintiff then filed a motion asking the court to award attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a federal law that allows people who win lawsuits against the government to recover their legal costs when the government's position was not substantially justified. The plaintiff's attorneys requested $260.00 per hour for 37.1 hours of attorney work and $120.00 per hour for 6.0 hours of paralegal work, citing the higher cost of living in the New York and New Jersey area to justify the rates above the usual $125 statutory cap. The government did not oppose the motion.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan granted the motion and awarded the plaintiff $10,366.00 in attorney fees under the EAJA. The court directed that payment be made directly to the plaintiff's law firm, Konoski & Partners, P.C., based on an assignment signed by the plaintiff, but noted the award is subject to any offset if the plaintiff owes outstanding federal debt.
The detailed version
- Jonathon Z. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-00411
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Nov. 26, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Jonathon Z. challenged the Social Security Administration's denial of his disability benefits in federal district court. The court previously remanded (sent back) the case to the agency pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which is one of two statutory mechanisms allowing a federal court to return a Social Security case to the agency for further proceedings. That earlier remand order is what gave the plaintiff 'prevailing party' status under the law.
The Fee Motion
Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The EAJA requires the government to pay a prevailing party's attorney fees in civil litigation unless the government's position was 'substantially justified' or special circumstances make an award unjust. The statutory default hourly rate under the EAJA is $125, but courts may award a higher rate if the cost of living or the limited availability of qualified attorneys justifies it.
Plaintiff's counsel, Bryan Konoski of Konoski & Partners, P.C., requested: - $260.00 per hour for 37.1 hours of attorney time in 2025 - $120.00 per hour for 6.0 hours of paralegal time in 2025
Counsel supported the above-statutory rate by citing the cost of living index in the New York and New Jersey region. The total requested amount came to $10,366.00.
Government's Non-Opposition
The government did not oppose the motion, did not argue that its prior litigation position was substantially justified, and did not contest the requested hours, rates, or the request to direct payment to plaintiff's counsel.
Legal Analysis
The court found that the plaintiff qualified as a prevailing party under the EAJA because a sentence-four remand order confers prevailing party status, citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302 (1993). The court also found, in the absence of any government objection, that the government's position was not substantially justified. The court reviewed the requested hours and rates and found them reasonable, accepting the cost-of-living justification for the above-statutory rate. The court also addressed the plaintiff's assignment of the fee award to his counsel, noting that under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), EAJA fees are technically payable to the litigant (not the attorney directly) and may be subject to administrative offset if the plaintiff has outstanding federal debts.
Disposition
The court granted the motion and awarded $10,366.00 in attorney fees under the EAJA, payable directly to Konoski & Partners, P.C., subject to any administrative offset for any outstanding federal debt owed by the plaintiff.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.