Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 14, 2020

Valentine v. Berryhill

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:18-cv-00795
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
Fee PetitionSocial Security
In one sentence

In Valentine v. Berryhill, Magistrate Judge Fox awarded Valentine $15,744 in fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Who this affects

Michelle Grace Valentine received a $15,744.00 award from the Commissioner for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

What happened

Michelle Grace Valentine sued the Social Security Commissioner after an administrative law judge denied her disability insurance and supplemental income benefits. The court later ordered that her claim be remanded for a calculation of benefits.

Valentine asked for $15,744 under the Equal Access to Justice Act: $14,985.50 for work on the case and $758.50 for preparing the fee request. The Commissioner argued that the request was excessive and urged the court to award no more than $8,200.

Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox granted Valentine’s application and awarded the full $15,744, finding that she qualified for the award and that her attorney’s hours were reasonable.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Valentine v. Berryhill · No. 1:18-cv-00795
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Aug. 14, 2020

Background

Michelle Grace Valentine sought review of an administrative law judge’s decision finding her ineligible for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits. The court had previously ordered that her claim be remanded for calculation of benefits after finding, as described in this opinion, that the administrative law judge violated the treating-physician rule and did not meaningfully explain why more weight was given to a non-examining medical adviser than to Valentine’s treating physicians.

Fee request

Valentine applied for attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that can require the government to pay reasonable litigation expenses when a claimant prevails and the government’s position was not substantially justified. She requested $14,985.50 for 73.1 hours of work on the merits of her case and $758.50 for 3.7 hours spent preparing the fee application, for a total of $15,744. Her attorney used an hourly rate of $205 for work performed in 2018 and 2019.

The Commissioner opposed the request as excessive. The Commissioner argued that the case did not involve unusually complex or novel issues, that the administrative record was not unusually large, and that courts in the district commonly treated 20 to 40 hours as a reasonable benchmark for similar cases. The Commissioner asked the court to award no more than $8,200.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Valentine met the requirements for an Equal Access to Justice Act award. It found that she was the prevailing party, that the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified, and that no special circumstances made an award unjust.

The court also found that the hours claimed were reasonable under the circumstances. Counsel had not represented Valentine during the administrative proceedings and therefore needed additional time to become familiar with the factual record and develop the case’s legal theory. The court further found that the legal issues, although not novel, were numerous and complex enough to support the time claimed.

Disposition

The court granted Valentine’s application for attorney’s fees and costs. It awarded $14,985.50 for her attorney’s work on the merits and $758.50 for work on the fee application, for a total award of $15,744.00.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.