Sergey F. v. Saul

Background

This order addresses Sergey F.’s motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Sergey F. requested $14,025 in attorney fees plus $400 in costs, for a total of $14,425.

Before this fee dispute, the court had granted Sergey F.’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that the Administrative Law Judge improperly discounted the opinions of Registered Nurse Jennifer Wolfe and Licensed Clinical Social Worker David Schmitt. It rejected the reasons the Administrative Law Judge gave for discounting Nurse Wolfe’s opinion, including the characterization that her opinion was cursory, based only on periodic treatment and medication adjustments, or inconsistent with the record.

Whether the Commissioner’s Position Was Substantially Justified

Under the EAJA, a prevailing Social Security claimant may recover reasonable fees and expenses when the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified. Substantial justification requires a reasonable basis in both law and fact. The Commissioner had the burden of showing that the government’s position met that standard.

The Commissioner argued that it was reasonable to defend the Administrative Law Judge’s rejection of Nurse Wolfe’s opinion because the opinion was cursory and inconsistent with her treatment notes and the rest of the record. The court disagreed. It had previously found that Nurse Wolfe’s form was neither conclusory nor unexplained, that her treatment relationship with Sergey F. was lengthy and detailed, and that her opinion was consistent with the overall record. The court also found that the Administrative Law Judge relied improperly on short periods of improvement in Sergey F.’s functioning.

The court therefore concluded that the Commissioner had not shown that the denial of benefits was substantially justified and that an award of reasonable fees and costs was appropriate.

Reasonableness of the Requested Fees

The Commissioner also argued that the requested fees should be reduced because the claimed hours were excessive, the case and record were not unusually complex or large, and some time entries reflected duplicated or clerical work. The Commissioner specifically challenged the time spent drafting briefs and the time claimed for a reply brief.

The court applied the lodestar method, which calculates fees by multiplying a reasonable number of hours by a reasonable hourly rate. It found that some of the time spent drafting briefs was excessive. Although the briefing-related entries totaled 43 hours of attorney time, the court awarded compensation for 30 of those 44 hours identified for Ms. Christel’s time. The court found that no additional reductions were warranted.

The court awarded fees for 53.15 hours of Stephanie Christel’s work at $200 per hour and 9 hours of paralegal Melinda Klotz’s work at $115 per hour. The $400 filing-fee costs were also included in the total award. The resulting award of fees and costs was $12,065.

Order

Judge Katherine Menendez granted in part Sergey F.’s EAJA fee motion. The court awarded $12,065 in reasonable attorney fees and costs, subject to an offset for any preexisting debt Sergey F. owes the United States. Because Sergey F. had assigned his interest in the EAJA award to his attorneys, the Commissioner was ordered to pay the award, minus any applicable offset, to Livgard & Lloyd PLLP within 60 days of the order.