Cheryl Minor v. Comm'r of Social Security
826 F.3d 878
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Cheryl Minor prevailed on a prior appeal of her Social Security disability denial; the Sixth Circuit remanded with instructions to award benefits.
- Minor sought reimbursement from the government under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) for attorney fees that would otherwise be paid out of her benefits via 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).
- She moved for $30,975.05 for 176.85 hours (rates $175.06–$184.32) plus $712.16 costs; the government conceded eligibility but opposed the rate and number of hours.
- A magistrate judge recommended awarding $8,080 (61 hours at $125/hr) plus $455 costs; the district court adopted the recommendation and denied Minor’s objections.
- The district court separately awarded $35,323.25 under § 406(b) (deducted from benefits); that § 406(b) award is not challenged in this appeal.
- The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded the EAJA award, finding the district court failed to provide sufficiently specific explanations for reducing both the hourly rate and the claimed hours.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EAJA hourly rate above $125 was justified | Minor produced state-bar survey and other evidence showing prevailing rates and requested cost-of-living–adjusted rates | Gov’t argued Minor failed to justify exceeding the $125 statutory cap | Remanded: district court must reconsider and explain why it rejected the state-bar evidence and whether a higher rate is justified |
| Whether the number of hours claimed (176.85) was reasonable | Counsel submitted detailed time entries totaling 176.85 hours for work from 2010–2013 | Gov’t contended many entries were excessive or unreasonable; court adopted large reductions to 61 hours | Remanded: district court’s drastic reductions lacked adequate explanation; must specify why particular hours are unreasonable and justify adopted alternatives |
Key Cases Cited
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (EAJA and § 406(b) interaction and fee allocation)
- Comm’r, I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (EAJA lodestar starting point and entitlement principles)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (lodestar: hours × reasonable rate; district-court explanation requirement)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (need for adequate explanation of fee awards)
- Gonter v. Hunt Valve Co., 510 F.3d 610 (Sixth Circuit on use of state bar surveys and deference with explanation)
- Bryant v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 578 F.3d 443 (burden to support rate increases under EAJA)
- Binta B. ex rel. S.A. v. Gordon, 710 F.3d 608 (vacatur for insufficiently specific fee-reduction explanations)