Parrott v. Shulkin
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4339
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Ms. Paula Parrott prevailed in the Veterans Court, which vacated the Board’s denial of survivor benefits and remanded; she then sought EAJA attorney fees and expenses.
- EAJA caps fees at $125/hr unless an increase is justified by an increase in the cost of living; fees must be based on prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of services.
- Parrott’s EAJA application sought $7,169.21 based on 37.4 hours at an hourly rate of $191.69, using the Washington, D.C. CPI; her attorney maintained offices in Dallas (principal), Little Rock, and San Francisco and worked on the case in those locations.
- The Secretary agreed an upward adjustment was appropriate but proposed using the Dallas CPI, yielding a lower rate than Parrott’s Washington, D.C.-based calculation.
- The Veterans Court adopted a local-CPIs-per-office approach (apportion time to each office and apply each local CPI) but found Parrott’s submission did not allocate hours by office, declined to solicit further detail, reduced allowed hours to 32, and awarded fees at the $125 statutory rate plus $50 in filing fees (total $4,050).
- On appeal, Parrott argued the Veterans Court erred by (1) requiring use of a local-CPI methodology and (2) abusing its discretion by not allowing her to amend her EAJA application; the Federal Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper method to compute EAJA cost-of-living adjustment (CPI choice) | Parrott: EAJA is ambiguous; applicant may choose the CPI approach that yields the highest fee (e.g., forum/DC CPI) | Secretary: Local-CPI approach is correct; cost of living and market rates are local; weight of authority favors local CPI | Court: Local-CPI approach (apportion by where attorney worked) is correct and consistent with EAJA text and purpose |
| Whether Veterans Court abused discretion by refusing to allow Parrott to amend her EAJA submission | Parrott: Court should have afforded opportunity to amend to supply office-by-office time allocations | Secretary: Lack of jurisdiction to review discretionary factual rulings; Veterans Court reasonably applied its discretion | Court: Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review this discretionary/factual exercise; no legal error shown; affirm refusal to permit amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Levernier Constr., Inc. v. United States, 947 F.2d 497 (Fed. Cir.) (discusses EAJA adjustments and market-rate limitations)
- Mannino v. West, 12 Vet. App. 242 (Vet. App.) (Veterans Court adopting local-CPI approach)
- Sprinkle v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 421 (7th Cir.) (collecting approaches; endorsing CPI adjustments)
- Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870 (9th Cir.) (uses national CPI approach)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (Sup. Ct.) (reasonableness standard for attorney fees)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (Sup. Ct.) (EAJA interpretation principles)
- Chiu v. United States, 948 F.2d 711 (Fed. Cir.) (addressed CPI/location issues without deciding national vs. local)
- Doty v. United States, 71 F.3d 384 (Fed. Cir.) (EAJA fee award above statutory cap where method not contested)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (Sup. Ct.) (no windfalls; reasonableness in fee awards)
- Avera v. Secretary of HHS, 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.) (forum-rate principles in Vaccine Act fees; discussed as distinct statutory context)