Hairston v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Denise Hairston, acting on behalf of her grandson, sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision that her grandson was not disabled under the Social Security Act beginning January 1, 2009. The court had previously remanded the case to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for additional administrative proceedings after finding that the administrative law judge did not sufficiently question Hairston at the hearing or obtain updated treatment records.

After the remand, Hairston sought $12,892 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), plus an additional $990 for preparing a reply concerning the fee request, for a total request of $13,882. The Commissioner did not challenge the requested hourly rate, Hairston’s status as a party who prevailed, or the timeliness of the application. The Commissioner argued that counsel’s request for 54.9 hours of work on the merits was excessive and should be limited to 40 hours.

Court’s analysis

The court found that all four requirements for an EAJA award were met: Hairston was a prevailing party because the sentence-four remand qualified as a final judgment; the government did not contest that its position was not substantially justified; the court found no special circumstances making an award unjust; and the application was timely and supported as required.

The parties agreed that $220 per hour was the appropriate cost-of-living-adjusted rate, and the court independently found that rate reasonable. The court considered the 556-page administrative record, the fact that counsel had not represented Hairston during the administrative proceedings, the length of the briefs, and the issues raised. It concluded that 54.9 hours on the merits was excessive compared with similar Social Security cases, but also concluded that compensating counsel for more than 40 hours was warranted because counsel had to become familiar with the record and had considered additional arguments.

The court rejected counsel’s argument that the elimination of the treating-physician rule justified additional time, noting that the briefs did not materially discuss that change and instead relied on a familiar argument that the administrative law judge had selected evidence unfairly. The court therefore approved 45 hours for work on the merits. It also approved 8.2 hours spent preparing the fee application, which the Commissioner had not challenged.

Disposition

The court awarded Hairston $11,704 in attorney fees under the EAJA. The award represented 53.2 hours total at $220 per hour: 45 hours for work on the merits and 8.2 hours for the fee application.