Santiago v. Saul
- Figueredo
- 1:20-cv-11104
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Santiago v. Commissioner, Judge Figueredo granted Maria Magadelena Santiago’s $14,585.40 request for attorney fees.
Maria Magadelena Santiago received an award of $14,585.40 in attorney fees from the United States under the Equal Access to Justice Act; the Commissioner of Social Security’s objection to the number of hours was rejected.
What happened
In Santiago v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court had previously sent Maria Magadelena Santiago’s case back to the agency for further proceedings. Santiago then requested attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law allowing certain fee awards in cases against the United States.
The Commissioner did not dispute that Santiago had won, that the request was timely, or that the hourly rate was acceptable. The Commissioner argued only that Santiago’s lawyer had billed too many hours and that 40 hours would be enough. Santiago’s lawyer requested payment for 66.6 hours at $219 per hour, totaling $14,585.40.
The court found that the request satisfied the law’s requirements and that both the hourly rate and number of hours were reasonable. Judge Figueredo granted Santiago’s application for $14,585.40 in attorney fees.
The detailed version
- Santiago v. Saul · No. 1:20-cv-11104
- Figueredo
- Jan. 3, 2023
Background
On December 16, 2021, the court sent Maria Magadelena Santiago’s Social Security case back to the Commissioner for additional administrative proceedings under “sentence four” of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Santiago then sought attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), requesting $14,585.40 for 66.6 hours of work at an hourly rate of $219.
The Commissioner opposed the amount of time claimed but did not dispute that Santiago was a prevailing party, that the fee application was timely, or that the requested hourly rate was reasonable. The Commissioner argued that the case required no more than 40 hours. Santiago’s counsel responded that the 1,535-page administrative record, multiple medical conditions, recent changes to the rules governing medical opinions, and other legal and procedural issues justified the additional time.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that an EAJA award requires the applicant to show that: (1) the applicant prevailed; (2) the government’s position was not substantially justified; (3) no special circumstances make an award unfair; and (4) the application was timely and supported by an itemized statement.
The court found all four requirements satisfied. Santiago was a prevailing party because the sentence-four remand qualified as a final judgment in her favor. The Commissioner did not contest that the government’s position was not substantially justified and conceded that Santiago was entitled to reasonable fees. The court accepted counsel’s representations concerning the absence of special circumstances and Santiago’s financial eligibility. The court also found the application timely.
The court approved the $219 hourly rate because it accounted for inflation and was consistent with rates approved in the district. It also found 58.9 hours spent on the underlying case and 7.7 hours spent on the fee application reasonable. The court concluded that the record’s size, the number of medical conditions, the recent change involving the treating-physician rule, and counsel’s work supported an award above the typical 20-to-40-hour range. The court also rejected reducing the award merely because counsel had experience in Social Security cases.
Disposition
The court granted Santiago’s application for attorney fees in the amount of $14,585.40.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.