CHRETIEN v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER
2:12-cv-00212
D. Me.Aug 30, 2013Background
- Plaintiff Monica Chretien appealed denial of Social Security benefits and sought remand under both sentence four and sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- The Commissioner granted remand under sentence four (judicial review remand) but the court denied the plaintiff’s separate sentence six motion (remand for newly submitted evidence).
- Plaintiff moved for attorney’s fees under the EAJA seeking $3,359.16; time entries include 2.75 hours devoted to the sentence six motion.
- Defendant opposed $513.92 of the request, arguing EAJA fees are not recoverable for work on an unsuccessful, separate sentence six remand and that the two motions are not sufficiently related.
- Magistrate Judge Rich concluded the sentence four and sentence six motions were based on separate cores of facts and legal theories in this case and recommended reducing the award by $513.92, for a total EAJA award of $2,845.24.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recoverability of EAJA fees for work on multiple remand motions | A prevailing party need only succeed on one significant issue to recover all EAJA fees incurred | Fees for work on an unsuccessful sentence six motion are not recoverable because it was a separate, unsuccessful claim | Fees for work on sentence six disallowed because the motion was not sufficiently related to the successful sentence four remand; award reduced accordingly |
| Whether sentence four and sentence six motions share a common core of facts | The motions are related as both arise from the same Social Security claim and §405(g) | The motions are distinct: sentence six seeks new-evidence remand; sentence four challenges administrative error/substantial evidence | Court found motions rested on separate cores of facts here (new evidence vs. record insufficiency) and thus not sufficiently related |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 125 F.3d 1418 (11th Cir. 1997) (EAJA fees not awardable for work on unsuccessful claims that are unrelated to successful claims)
- Natural Resources Defense Council v. Locke, 771 F. Supp. 2d 1203 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (claims are unrelated when they seek to remedy distinct courses of conduct)