Finch v. Colvin

Background

Stephanie M. Finch sought review of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of her applications for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. On April 1, 2019, the court granted Finch’s motion for judgment on the pleadings to the extent that it remanded the case to the Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The remand was based on several deficiencies in the administrative law judge’s decision. The judge had primarily relied on two non-treating physicians while excluding Finch’s treating physicians, did not adequately evaluate Finch’s complaints about pain and discomfort from radiation damage, did not include the effect of her gastrointestinal problems in her residual functional capacity, and did not address vocational-expert testimony that the need for the described bathroom breaks would prevent suitable employment.

Finch then moved for $10,152.25 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Commissioner opposed the request, arguing that the government’s position was substantially justified. Alternatively, the Commissioner argued that some tasks were not compensable and that any award should be paid to Finch rather than her attorney.

Attorney-Fee Standards

The Equal Access to Justice Act generally requires an award to a prevailing party in a civil action against the United States unless the government’s position was substantially justified or special circumstances would make an award unjust. The applicant must also file the fee request within 30 days after final judgment and support it with an itemized statement.

The court explained that a claimant who receives a remand is a prevailing party. The government bears the burden of showing that its position was substantially justified, meaning justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person, in both law and fact. The court also considered whether the requested hourly rates and tasks were reasonable.

Substantial Justification

The court rejected the Commissioner’s arguments that the government’s position was substantially justified. The Commissioner did not argue that the administrative law judge was justified in ignoring the vocational-expert testimony or the effect of Finch’s gastrointestinal problems. The court found that these failures alone supported the conclusion that the government lacked substantial justification.

The court also rejected the Commissioner’s arguments concerning the treating physicians. It had previously found that the administrative law judge did not provide good reasons for the weight given to the treating physicians’ opinions. The Commissioner’s fee opposition largely repeated arguments that had already been rejected rather than showing that the administrative decision and the government’s litigation position were substantially justified.

The court likewise found inadequate development of Finch’s complaints about pain and discomfort caused by radiation damage. The cited record page did not evaluate Finch’s credibility; it merely stated that her testimony was not entirely consistent.

The court found no special circumstances that would make a fee award unjust. It also found the motion timely because Finch filed it within 30 days after the Commissioner’s time to appeal the final judgment expired.

Amount of the Award

Finch requested hourly rates of $192.68 for work performed in 2016, $196.79 for work performed in 2017, and $201.60 for work performed in 2019. Although the statutory Equal Access to Justice Act rate is $125 per hour, the court explained that a cost-of-living adjustment may support a higher rate. Using the Consumer Price Index for the Northeast region, the court calculated somewhat higher permissible rates but approved Finch’s requested rates because they were within the acceptable range. The court did not find that a special professional qualification justified a higher rate.

The Commissioner challenged $408 for 5.1 hours of paralegal work involving tasks such as scanning documents, serving documents, preparing a certificate of service, filing documents, calendaring dates, and preparing covers and tables of contents. The court stated that paralegal fees may be recoverable but purely clerical or administrative work is not compensable under the Act.

Because some time entries combined clerical and substantive work without separating the time spent on each task, the court used a percentage reduction rather than examining every entry separately. Finding that approximately 70 percent of the paralegal time involved non-clerical work, the court reduced the overall paralegal fees by 30 percent, resulting in a paralegal award of $907.20.

Disposition

Judge Ona T. Wang granted Finch’s motion in part and awarded $9,763.45 in attorney fees: $8,856.25 for attorney work and $907.20 for paralegal work. The award was made payable directly to Finch. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the fee motion.