Parrish v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22700
9th Cir.2012Background
- Wilborn represented Parrish in a Social Security benefits case and an EAJA past-due fees award followed by district-court remands.
- Both the Social Security Act (SSA) and the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) authorize fees for successful representations, but a savings provision offsets double recovery for the same work.
- The savings provision requires refund of the smaller fee when fees are awarded under both § 406(b) and § 2412 for the same work.
- Parrish’s case proceeded through district court remands and two EAJA fee awards, culminating in a § 406(b) fee award to Wilborn of 25% of past-due benefits.
- The district court offset the first EAJA award ($5,000) against the § 406(b) fee and later offset the second EAJA award ($6,575) under Kopulos v. Barnhart, leading to a reduced or zero net § 406(b) award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do EAJA savings offsets apply when EAJA fees and §406(b) fees cover the same work. | Wilborn: offsets apply only to the same work actually performed for the same appeal. | Parrish/SSA: savings applies broadly to overlapping work across stages. | Yes; EAJA fees for the same work must offset the §406(b) award. |
| Can §406(b) compensate for work before prior remands, not just the final successful judgment. | Wilborn: §406(b) should cover all work leading to the final past-due benefits, including prior remands. | Commissioner: §406(b) targets work resulting in a favorable judgment, not all prior stages. | §406(b) may compensate for work before the favorable judgment, including pre-final-remand work. |
| Was the first EAJA award properly offset against the §406(b) award in this case? | Wilborn: offset should apply only to the same work, not separate EAJA awards. | SSA: savings provision offsets all EAJA awards for the same claimant and work. | Yes; the first EAJA award was properly offset against §406(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (U.S. 2002) (exclusive regime; offset allowed to maximize past-due benefits; creates savings provision)
- Corbin v. Apfel, 149 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1998) (prevailing-party concept for EAJA fees in SSA context)
- McGraw v. Barnhart, 450 F.3d 493 (10th Cir. 2006) (broadly includes substantial pre-judgment work leading to benefit award)
- Conner v. Gardner, 381 F.2d 497 (4th Cir. 1967) (recognizes remands as contributing to success in litigation)
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1993) (remand constitutes some benefit achieved in litigation)
- Fenix v. Finch, 436 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1971) (recognizes work before the court as compensable in SSA context)
- Kopulos v. Barnhart, 318 F. Supp. 2d 657 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (district court rule offsetting EAJA against SSA fees)