Harmony S. J. v. Saul
- Becky Thorson
- 0:19-cv-02380
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Harmony S. J. v. Saul, Judge Thorson granted the fee petition and awarded $10,901.52, less any pre-existing debt owed by Harmony S. J. to the United States.
Harmony S. J. and her attorneys received the approved EAJA award, subject to any pre-existing debt Harmony S. J. owes the United States; the Commissioner did not dispute that an award was appropriate but disputed its amount.
What happened
In Harmony S. J. v. Saul, Harmony S. J.’s case had previously been sent back for further proceedings after the court partly granted her request for judgment and denied the Commissioner’s request. Her attorneys then asked for $10,901.52 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
The Commissioner did not oppose awarding fees but argued that the attorneys should receive payment for no more than 40 hours. The court rejected that argument, finding that the 58.8 hours claimed were reasonable, including time spent reviewing an administrative record exceeding 1,800 pages and researching while reviewing the file.
Judge Becky R. Thorson granted the attorneys’ fee petition and awarded Harmony S. J. $10,901.52 under the Act, less any pre-existing debt she owes the United States.
The detailed version
- Harmony S. J. v. Saul · No. 0:19-cv-02380
- Becky Thorson
- Mar. 1, 2021
Background
Harmony S. J. sought judicial review of the denial of her application for Social Security disability benefits. On August 4, 2020, the court granted her motion for summary judgment in part, denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four, for further proceedings.
This order addresses only Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Petition for Attorney Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a federal law that can require the United States to pay reasonable attorney fees to a qualifying party that prevailed in a case challenging government action.
Positions of the Parties
Plaintiff’s counsel requested $10,901.52 for 58.8 hours of work at $206 per hour. The requested total already reflected a 10 percent reduction made as a billing decision. The Commissioner did not object to an EAJA award or to the $206 hourly rate, but argued that any payment for more than 40 hours was unreasonable. The Commissioner specifically challenged time spent reviewing the record, researching, and preparing the brief.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that a party obtaining a sentence-four remand qualifies as a prevailing party under the EAJA. The court also noted that the Commissioner conceded that the government’s position in the litigation was not substantially justified. The Commissioner disputed only the amount of the requested award.
After reviewing the itemized time records, the court found that the hours and legal work were neither excessive nor unreasonable. It explained that reviewing the administrative record, which exceeded 1,800 pages, required significant time. The court also found that researching issues while reviewing the record was not a reason to reduce the fee request.
Disposition
The court GRANTED Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Petition for Attorney Fees under the EAJA. It awarded Plaintiff a total of $10,901.52, less any pre-existing debt that Plaintiff owes the United States. The fee ruling is an ancillary fee decision rather than a ruling on the underlying disability-benefits merits. Judge Becky R. Thorson signed the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.