Murkeldove v. Astrue
635 F.3d 784
5th Cir.2011Background
- Five consolidated actions involve five plaintiffs seeking past-due Social Security benefits; district court reversed SSA decisions and remanded for further proceedings under sentence four; plaintiffs sought EAJA attorney's fees; contingency-fee agreements provided for fees payable if EAJA fees are awarded; district court held plaintiffs had not incurred fees under EAJA and considered special circumstances unjust; Fifth Circuit vacates district court judgments and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs incurred EAJA fees under contingency-fee agreements | Murkeldove and Vinning Plaintiffs incurred fees via contingency agreements | District court held no incurrence due to lack of final benefits award | Yes, they incurred under contingency agreements. |
| Whether contingency-fee agreements are allowed under EAJA | Contingent-fee arrangements can satisfy incurrence under EAJA | EAJA should be read to prohibit such arrangements absent specific interpretation | Contingency-fee agreements are allowed under EAJA. |
| Whether special circumstances justify denying EAJA fees for Murkeldove | Special circumstances do not render award unjust given policy goals | District court found special circumstances making award unjust | Special circumstances do not make EAJA award unjust. |
| How the Savings Clause and interaction with 406(a)/(b) affect awards | EAJA and 406(a)/(b) can both apply; total fees may exceed 25% if properly managed | Total fees are capped and must be reconciled | EAJA may coexist with 406(a)/(b); refunds to avoid excess are required. |
| Effect of Assignment of Claims Act on fee arrangements | Act does not bar contingency-fee assignments for EAJA | Act precludes certain pre-litigation assignments | Act does not bar contingency-fee agreements here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Claro v. United States, 579 F.3d 452, 579 F.3d 452 (5th Cir.2009) (incurred defined; contingency fees allowed under Hyde Amendment)
- Rice v. Astrue, 609 F.3d 831, 609 F.3d 831 (5th Cir.2010) (limits when combining EAJA with §406 fees; savings clause implications)
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 535 U.S. 789 (U.S. 2002) (EAJA fees determined by time and rate; Savings Clause context)
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 509 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1993) (final judgment timing for EAJA awards)
- Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, 530 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2000) (statutory interpretation not absurd; strict construction caveat)
- Tex. Food Indus. Ass'n v. USDA, 81 F.3d 578, 81 F.3d 578 (5th Cir.1996) (EAJA strict construction in government's favor; policy considerations)