Wilson v. Berryhill
- David Schultz
- 0:16-cv-02758
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Harles-Wilson v. Berryhill, Judge Noel granted $9,576.73 in Equal Access to Justice Act attorney’s fees.
Joanne Harles-Wilson was awarded $9,576.73 in attorney’s fees payable by the United States under the Equal Access to Justice Act; the Commissioner’s objections were rejected.
What happened
In Joanne Harles-Wilson v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Harles-Wilson sought review of the denial of her Social Security benefits. The court had reversed the administrative law judge’s decision and sent the matter back for further proceedings after finding errors involving a treating physician and a licensed clinical social worker.
Harles-Wilson requested $9,576.73 for 47.8 hours of legal work. Berryhill argued that the government’s position was reasonable and that the fee should be reduced because Harles-Wilson succeeded on only two of seven challenges.
Judge Franklin L. Noel rejected both arguments. He found that the government’s position was not substantially justified and that the requested hours and amount were reasonable, so he granted the motion and awarded $9,576.73 in attorney’s fees.
The detailed version
- Wilson v. Berryhill · No. 0:16-cv-02758
- David Schultz
- Aug. 2, 2018
Background
Joanne Harles-Wilson brought the underlying case seeking judicial review of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her claim for Social Security benefits. In an earlier order, the court reversed the administrative law judge’s decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The court identified errors in the administrative law judge’s explanation of the weight given to Harles-Wilson’s treating physician and in the consideration of the factors governing the weight given to Pam Thompson, a licensed clinical social worker. The court remanded based on two of Harles-Wilson’s seven challenges.
Harles-Wilson then moved for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that can require the United States to pay reasonable litigation expenses when a party prevails against the government. She requested $9,576.73 for 47.8 hours of work at an enhanced hourly rate of $200.35.
Arguments
The Commissioner did not dispute that Harles-Wilson was the prevailing party or challenge the requested hourly rate. Instead, the Commissioner argued that the government’s position was substantially justified—that is, supported by a reasonable basis in law and fact—because the court had not accepted all seven of Harles-Wilson’s asserted errors. In the alternative, the Commissioner argued that the fee should be reduced to reflect Harles-Wilson’s partial success.
Court’s analysis
Judge Franklin L. Noel held that the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified. The earlier order had found that the administrative law judge’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and was outside a reasonable range of choices because of the errors involving the treating physician and licensed clinical social worker.
The court also rejected reducing the fee based on the unsuccessful challenges. It concluded that Harles-Wilson had prevailed on the merits and obtained complete relief through the remand. The court reviewed the billing records and found that the time spent and requested fees were reasonable, noting that the Social Security record was extensive.
Disposition
The court granted Harles-Wilson’s motion for attorney’s fees and awarded her $9,576.73.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.