T.R. v. Berryhill
- Elizabeth Wright
- 0:17-cv-05587
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In T. R. v. Berryhill, Magistrate Judge Wright granted in part and denied in part counsel’s fee petition, awarding $7,634.28 under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
T. R. and her counsel, Karl E. Osterhout, received an EAJA fee award of $7,634.28 instead of the $7,702.26 requested. The award is payable to T. R., subject to any required offset for qualifying debts to the United States, and then sent to counsel under the assignment.
What happened
In T. R. v. Berryhill, T. R. had successfully challenged part of the Social Security decision denying disability insurance benefits, and the court had sent the case back to the administrative law judge for further consideration.
T. R.’s lawyer requested $7,702.26 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Commissioner did not argue that the government’s position was justified, but argued that the requested hourly rates and time were unreasonable.
The court granted in part and denied in part the fee petition, awarding $7,634.28. Magistrate Judge Wright reduced the award by 0.3 hours for clerical work but allowed the other challenged time; the payment goes to T. R., may be offset for qualifying debts to the United States, and is then sent to counsel under the assignment.
The detailed version
- T.R. v. Berryhill · No. 0:17-cv-05587
- Elizabeth Wright
- Oct. 2, 2019
Background
T. R. sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision denying her application for disability insurance benefits. In an earlier ruling, the court granted T. R.’s motion for summary judgment in part and remanded the case to the administrative law judge. The remand concerned the administrative law judge’s evaluation of T. R.’s subjective symptoms and the resulting weight given to her treating provider’s opinion.
T. R.’s counsel then filed a petition under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a federal law that can require the United States to pay reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party when the government’s position was not substantially justified. Counsel requested $7,702.26, based on 38.2 hours at $201.63 per hour. The Commissioner challenged the amount of the requested fees but did not claim that the government’s position was substantially justified.
Hourly rates
The EAJA generally limits attorney fees to $125 per hour, but permits a higher rate when an increase in the cost of living or a special factor justifies it. The court accepted the use of the Consumer Price Index to adjust the statutory rate, but concluded that the applicable rate should be based on the year in which the work was performed:
- 2017: $196.79 per hour - 2018: $201.60 per hour - 2019: $204.25 per hour
Time deductions
The Commissioner argued that 0.2 hours for electronically filing the appeal and 0.1 hours for reviewing the complaint and service documents were clerical work rather than compensable attorney work. The court agreed and deducted 0.3 hours from the 2017 time.
The Commissioner also sought to deduct 0.7 hours for reviewing court filings and orders and preparing an extension request. The court denied that requested deduction, finding those tasks reasonable.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part counsel’s fee petition. It awarded:
- 2017: 2.7 hours at $196.79, totaling $531.33 - 2018: 32.7 hours at $201.60, totaling $6,592.32 - 2019: 2.5 hours at $204.25, totaling $510.63
The total award was $7,634.28 in reasonable attorney fees under the EAJA. The award is payable to T. R. as the litigant and is subject to offset for any qualifying pre-existing debt T. R. owes to the United States. Under T. R.’s assignment of attorney fees, the Commissioner must send the payment, after any required offset, to T. R.’s counsel, Karl E. Osterhout.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.