Hill v. Berryhill
697 F. App'x 101
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Deborah Hill appealed the district court's denial of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) after voluntarily dismissing her Social Security action.
- Hill had been represented in federal court and later obtained benefits through a separate administrative readjudication under the terms of a Padro settlement.
- The district court dismissed Hill’s case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) at Hill’s election; no judgment on the merits was entered by the court.
- Hill moved for § 406(b) fees, which authorize up to 25% of past-due Social Security benefits when a court renders a favorable judgment for the claimant.
- The district court denied the § 406(b) fee request, concluding Hill’s voluntary dismissal did not create a judgment or a fund from which a § 406(b) award could be paid.
- Hill appealed; the Second Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion (and legal questions de novo) and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 406(b) fees can be awarded when claimant voluntarily dismisses federal suit but later obtains benefits administratively | Hill argued she was entitled to § 406(b) fees because she ultimately secured past-due benefits after readjudication | Government argued no court judgment was rendered and therefore no basis for a § 406(b) award from a judicially-created fund | Court held § 406(b) requires a court judgment establishing entitlement or a fund; voluntary dismissal did not satisfy that, so fees denied |
| Proper standard of review for denial of attorney’s fees | Hill implicitly challenged the denial | Government defended district court’s discretion and legal reasoning | Court applied abuse-of-discretion review (with de novo review for legal questions) and found no error |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. Yonkers Sch. Dist., 561 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard of review for attorney’s fees decisions)
- Auto. Club of N.Y., Inc. v. Dykstra, 520 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2008) (supports abuse-of-discretion framework)
- Williams v. Beemiller, Inc., 527 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2008) (de novo review applies to legal questions within fee rulings)