Giambattista v. Colvin
1:16-cv-00447
W.D.N.Y.Jul 22, 2019Background
- Plaintiff (Giambattista) obtained a judicial remand of his Social Security benefits denial on November 6, 2018; judgment entered November 7, 2018.
- Plaintiff's counsel moved for EAJA fees totaling $6,316.98; parties stipulated to that amount.
- Court must independently assess reasonableness of stipulated EAJA fee despite parties' agreement.
- Government did not argue its position was substantially justified and raised no special circumstances to deny fees.
- The stipulated hourly rate ($194.07) reflects a CPI-based upward adjustment above the $125 statutory cap and the court found the hours claimed (32.55) reasonable.
- Fee payment conditioned on plaintiff assigning fees to counsel and on absence of federal debt subject to Treasury Offset; Anti-Assignment Act issues noted if government objects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff is a "prevailing party" under the EAJA | Plaintiff is prevailing because case was remanded | Government did not contest | Held: plaintiff is prevailing (Shalala v. Schaefer) |
| Whether EAJA fees should be awarded given government justification/special circumstances | Fee award appropriate; no special circumstances | Government did not show its position was substantially justified | Held: award appropriate; government failed its burden |
| Whether the $125/hour EAJA cap can be exceeded | CPI adjustment justifies higher hourly rate | Implicitly accepts adjustment or did not oppose | Held: CPI-based increase to $194.07/hour is proper |
| Whether fees may be paid directly to counsel (assignment/Anti-Assignment Act) | Plaintiff assigned EAJA fees to counsel; requests payment to counsel | Government may invoke Anti-Assignment Act/offset for federal debts | Held: fees awarded to counsel unless government invokes Anti-Assignment Act, in which case payable to plaintiff but delivered to counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (statutory "prevailing party" standard for EAJA in remand cases)
- Eames v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 251 (burden on government to show substantial justification under EAJA)
- Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (EAJA fees are payable to the litigant and subject to offset for federal debts)
- Kerr for Kerr v. Commissioner of Social Security, 874 F.3d 926 (discussion of Anti-Assignment Act and EAJA fee payment)