Rivera Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-04025
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Rivera Hernandez v. Commissioner, Judge Parker granted the Social Security plaintiff’s Equal Access to Justice Act request for $14,760.09.
Gilberto Rivera Hernandez received an award of $14,760.09 in attorney fees and costs from his Social Security case; the Commissioner of Social Security opposed reducing the requested attorney hours but did not challenge the fee rate or eligibility.
What happened
In Rivera Hernandez v. Commissioner, the court had previously sent the plaintiff’s Social Security case back to the agency for further proceedings. The plaintiff then requested reimbursement for attorney fees and costs under a federal law that can pay fees when the government’s position was not substantially justified.
The plaintiff requested $14,136 plus $624.09 for work on the fee request, totaling $14,760.09. The government did not challenge the plaintiff’s eligibility or the $200 hourly rate, but argued that the attorney had spent too many hours. The court found the hours reasonable because the administrative record exceeded 2,000 pages, the case involved eleven alleged errors, the briefing was extensive, and the procedural history was unusually complex.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the application for fees and costs in the amount of $14,760.09 and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the fee motion.
The detailed version
- Rivera Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-04025
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 28, 2020
Background
The court had remanded this Social Security case to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sending it back for additional administrative proceedings. The parties had stipulated to that remand, and the court had approved it on February 5, 2020. The remand order was not appealed.
The plaintiff moved for attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that permits fee awards in certain cases against the United States. He requested $14,136, plus $624.09 for time spent preparing a reply concerning the fee motion, for a total request of $14,760.09.
Eligibility for Fees
The court found that all four requirements for an Equal Access to Justice Act award were satisfied:
- The plaintiff was a prevailing party because a sentence-four remand qualifies a plaintiff for that status.
- The government did not contest that its position was not substantially justified and conceded that the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable fees.
- The court found no special circumstances that would make an award unfair.
- The motion was timely because it was filed within the required 30-day period.
The court also stated that the plaintiff qualified for an award because his net assets were worth less than two million dollars.
Reasonableness of the Requested Fees
The plaintiff’s attorney requested $200 per hour for 70.5 hours of work and $90 per hour for 0.4 hours of paralegal work. The court found the $200 hourly rate reasonable based on the increase in the cost of living since the statutory $125 hourly rate was established in 1996. The government did not oppose the hourly rates but argued that no more than 40 attorney hours were warranted.
The court rejected that reduction. It explained that the administrative record was more than 2,000 pages, that counsel spent about 25.2 hours reviewing it, and that counsel did not have the official hearing transcript and record with page numbers before beginning the federal case. The plaintiff’s counsel identified and briefed eleven alleged administrative errors. The plaintiff’s portion of the required joint submission was 65 pages, including about 18.8 hours spent on the facts and 23.8 hours spent on the legal arguments.
The court also considered the case’s unusual procedural history, including earlier applications for benefits, several administrative hearings, and a change in law firms. It further found that the briefing time was not unnecessary because the government agreed to a remand only after receiving the plaintiff’s arguments.
The court also approved the additional $624.09 for 3.3 hours spent reviewing the government’s opposition to the fee motion and preparing the reply.
Disposition
The court granted the plaintiff’s application for fees and costs in the amount of $14,760.09. It requested that the Clerk of Court terminate the motion at ECF No. 22.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.