895 F.3d 449
6th Cir.2018Background
- Hayes appealed the denial of Social Security disability benefits; case remanded under sentence six due to inaudible hearing recordings; ALJ later entered a fully favorable decision on remand.
- District court re-docketed and affirmed the ALJ’s decision on April 19, 2012; Cybriwsky had previously obtained $2,225 in EAJA fees in August 2012.
- Cybriwsky waited until April 2017 to move for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), seeking about $11,000; SSA had already released the 25% past-due withholding (payable for fees) to Hayes and his counsel at the administrative level.
- The Commissioner moved to dismiss the § 406(b) motion as untimely; district court held a hearing, found the motion untimely under the local 30‑day rule (modifying Rule 54) and refused to apply equitable tolling.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and AFFIRMED, holding the filing period began on the April 19, 2012 final judgment, Cybriwsky had notice or means to obtain the Notice of Award in 2012, and equitable tolling was unwarranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of § 406(b) fee motion | Local rule/RPC deadlines shouldn’t apply; no statutory deadline exists, so his 2017 motion was timely | Rule 54(d) governs; local E.D. Ky. R. 83.11(d) sets 30‑day deadline from final judgment | Motion untimely; filing period began April 19, 2012 and local 30‑day rule applied |
| When filing period begins after a sentence‑six remand | Filing period begins when remand occurs | Filing period begins after post‑remand proceedings, final judgment, and appeal period | Begins after post‑remand completion and final judgment (April 19, 2012) |
| Whether Cybriwsky lacked necessary information (Notice of Award) to file earlier | He did not receive Notice of Award and dependent benefit info until 2017, so could not prepare accurate fee request | Record shows he received/reviewed a Notice of Award in April 2012 and had means to obtain information | Court found record shows he had the Notice/means in 2012; factor disfavors tolling |
| Equitable tolling of the filing deadline | Extraordinary circumstances (lack of notice from SSA) justify tolling | No lack of notice or diligence; local rule known; delay prejudicial to Hayes/SSA | Equitable tolling denied; petitioner failed the multi‑factor test and lacked diligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991) (final judgment after post‑remand proceedings starts filing periods for fee motions)
- Minor v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 826 F.3d 878 (6th Cir. 2016) (standards for reviewing § 406(b) fee determinations)
- Cook v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 480 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2007) (equitable‑tolling multi‑factor test in Social Security fee context)
- Dunlap v. United States, 250 F.3d 1001 (6th Cir. 2001) (elements for equitable tolling)
- Miltimore Sales, Inc. v. Int’l Rectifier, Inc., 412 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2005) (district courts may adopt local rules modifying Fed. R. Civ. P. deadlines)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) (local rules adopted by courts have force of law)
- Faucher v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 17 F.3d 171 (6th Cir. 1994) (sentence‑six remand is pre‑judgment and does not resolve correctness of administrative decision)