M.F. v. Kijakazi

Background

M.F., proceeding under a pseudonym, applied for disability benefits, but an administrative law judge denied the application. In an earlier order, the court granted M.F.’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the matter to the Acting Commissioner for further proceedings. That order found that the administrative law judge had failed to address M.F.’s stated severe sensitivity to the side effects of psychiatric drugs when discounting her symptom testimony.

M.F. then sought attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). M.F. also asked that any fee award be paid directly to her attorney. The Acting Commissioner opposed only the reasonableness of the requested award.

EAJA Eligibility

The court held that M.F. was a prevailing party because the earlier order had granted summary judgment and remanded the case. The Acting Commissioner did not assert special circumstances and did not dispute that the government’s position was not substantially justified. The court therefore agreed that M.F. was entitled to attorney’s fees under the EAJA.

Reasonableness of Fees and Costs

M.F.’s attorneys submitted billing records showing 134.65 hours of work by three lawyers. The court found a 40% reduction warranted and awarded $17,466.72 in attorney’s fees. The court identified several reasons for the reduction:

- At least eight pages of the 25-page summary-judgment brief addressed issues the remand order did not decide. Because 104.95 hours were billed for the summary-judgment motion, the court found that at least 33.6 hours should be excluded. - The result was favorable but limited because the court ordered further proceedings rather than awarding benefits. The earlier remand order did not direct the administrative law judge to change the ultimate disability decision. - Some billing entries appeared inaccurate or inflated, including entries for reading counsel’s own complaint and downloading two court documents. - Some entries appeared duplicative, including billing by two lawyers for similar communications and research. The court also found the lack of a statement that the entries were recorded contemporaneously made them less reliable. - Other entries were too vague to show what work was performed or whether it was reasonably connected to the result achieved.

The court reduced the total hours from 134.65 to 80.79 and applied the applicable EAJA hourly rates for work performed in 2020 and 2021. It also awarded the requested $400 filing fee as costs.

Bad Faith

The court rejected M.F.’s unsupported and conclusory assertions that the Acting Commissioner acted in bad faith. It found that delay alone was insufficient, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the other allegations did not establish knowingly or recklessly frivolous arguments, harassment, or wanton conduct.

Direct Payment and Disposition

M.F.’s attorney submitted a fee agreement stating that M.F. had assigned any EAJA award to counsel. Because the record did not show whether M.F. owed a government debt subject to offset, the court directed that the fee award be paid to the attorney only after verification that no qualifying debt existed. If there was no such debt, the check was to be made out to M.F.’s attorney.

Judge William Alsup concluded that M.F.’s motion for attorney’s fees was granted in part and denied in part. The order awarded M.F. $17,466.72 in attorney’s fees and $400.00 in costs.