Caviness v. Commissioner of Social Security
681 F. App'x 453
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Angela Caviness obtained a stipulated remand and judgment in her Social Security benefits case and sought attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) for her counsel Howard Olinsky.
- EAJA sets a $125/hr statutory cap on attorney fees but allows a higher rate if an increase in the cost of living or a special factor justifies it.
- Caviness requested $185.01/hr (39 hours) by adjusting the 1996 $125 cap using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Midwest urban areas and submitted a Michigan State Bar report on prevailing rates.
- The government argued CPI alone cannot justify exceeding $125/hr and that inflation affects markets differently; it opposed the higher rate.
- The district court awarded fees at the $125/hr cap (total $4,875) plus $15.39 costs, rejecting an automatic CPI adjustment but did not explain why $125/hr was sufficient in this case.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed that EAJA does not mandate automatic CPI increases but vacated and remanded because the district court failed to adequately explain its denial of a higher rate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EAJA entitles prevailing parties to an automatic cost-of-living increase above the $125/hr cap | Caviness: CPI adjustment alone justifies raising $125 to $185.01 | Gov't: CPI alone insufficient; inflation impacts vary and must be tied to local prevailing rates and case-specific factors | No automatic COLA; CPI alone insufficient to require an increase |
| What evidence is required to obtain an hourly rate above the EAJA cap | Caviness: CPI and state bar survey demonstrate prevailing rates justify increase | Gov't: Plaintiff must show localized prevailing rates and case-specific justification beyond CPI | Plaintiff must produce localized rate evidence and show why higher rate is justified by case and quality of services |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding only $125/hr without explanation | Caviness: District court should have granted higher rate or explained rejection of $185.01 | Gov't: District court correctly refused automatic CPI increase; plaintiff failed to meet burden | Court abused discretion by failing to explain why $125/hr was sufficient; remand required for adequate explanation |
| Standard of review for EAJA fee determinations | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Abuse-of-discretion review; district court must give reasoned explanation when denying higher rates |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 578 F.3d 443 (6th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff bears burden to justify EAJA fee above cap and must show rates prevailing in the community)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (reasonable attorney fee determinations consider prevailing community rates for similar services)
- Chipman v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 781 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1986) (EAJA $125/hr is a ceiling, not a floor)
- Begley v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 966 F.2d 196 (6th Cir. 1992) (awarding above-cap EAJA fees is within district court's discretion)
- Minor v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 826 F.3d 878 (6th Cir. 2016) (state bar reports can evidence prevailing rates but plaintiff must also show justification tied to the case)
- Glenn v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 763 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard and reversal when district court fails to provide adequate explanation)
- Déjà Vu of Nashville, Inc. v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cty., 274 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2001) (district court abuses discretion when relying on clearly erroneous facts or wrong legal standard)
- U.S. Structures, Inc. v. J.P. Structures, Inc., 130 F.3d 1185 (6th Cir. 1997) (appellate reversal warranted where district court fails to explain its reasoning)