Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 11, 2023

Nieves v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
James Cott
Docket
1:20-cv-04179
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Fee PetitionSocial Security
In one sentence

In Nieves v. Commissioner, Judge Cott granted Carmen Nieves’s request for $13,614.80 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees.

Who this affects

Carmen Nieves’s request for Equal Access to Justice Act fees was granted in the amount of $13,614.80, while the additional 3.90 hours were not awarded.

What happened

In Nieves v. Commissioner, Carmen Nieves asked the court to award attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act for work in her Social Security case. The Commissioner did not dispute that Nieves was eligible for fees or that the hourly rate was appropriate.

Nieves requested $13,614.80 for 62.8 hours of attorney work and 0.5 hours of paralegal work. The Commissioner argued that the attorney time was excessive and that the award should be reduced to $8,690. Nieves responded that the time was reasonable because the case involved a 2,234-page administrative record and detailed issues.

Judge James L. Cott granted the motion and awarded $13,614.80. He found the requested time reasonable given the size of the record and the court’s detailed 48-page decision, but did not award payment for an additional 3.90 hours because Nieves had not submitted the required contemporaneous time records.

The detailed version

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

Case
Nieves v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-04179
Judge
James Cott
Date
Jan. 11, 2023

Background

Carmen Nieves moved for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that permits a qualifying party to recover reasonable litigation fees from the government. She requested $13,614.80: payment for 62.8 hours of attorney work at $216 per hour and 0.5 hours of paralegal work at $100 per hour.

The Commissioner did not challenge the timeliness of the motion, Nieves’s status as a prevailing party, or the requested hourly rate. The Commissioner challenged only the number of attorney hours, arguing that 62.8 hours was excessive for a routine Social Security case and that the award should be reduced to no more than 40 attorney hours, totaling $8,690.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that reasonable fees are generally calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably spent on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. Although courts sometimes consider 20 to 40 hours reasonable in routine Social Security cases, they may award more when the circumstances justify additional work, including when the administrative record is unusually large.

Judge Cott found that 62.8 attorney hours and 0.5 paralegal hours were reasonable here. The administrative record contained 2,234 pages, including more than 1,000 pages of medical records. The court also noted that its own decision was 48 pages long and required detailed analysis. It concluded that counsel reasonably needed to examine and cite the extensive record and apply Social Security law to the testimony and documentary evidence.

Additional hours

Nieves also asked for fees for an additional 3.90 hours spent reviewing the Commissioner’s opposition to the fee motion and preparing a response. The court stated that time spent litigating a fee motion can sometimes be recoverable, but denied an award for these additional hours because Nieves did not provide contemporaneous time records. The court explained that such records are generally required and that statements in a legal brief are not evidence.

Disposition

The court granted Nieves’s motion for Equal Access to Justice Act fees in the amount of $13,614.80. The Clerk was directed to close the fee-motion docket entry and mark it as granted.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.