Sinkler v. Berryhill, 932 F.3d 83

Background

Sinkler sued the SSA seeking SSI; the district court entered a "sentence four" judgment reversing denial and remanded for further proceedings.
After remand, the ALJ found entitlement and the Commissioner notified Sinkler (counsel received notice Jan 3, 2017) of $67,404 in past‑due benefits.
Sinkler’s counsel waited ~6 months and filed a § 406(b) attorney‑fee motion on July 6, 2017, seeking 25% ($16,851) of past‑due benefits.
The district court denied the § 406(b) motion as untimely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B)’s 14‑day rule and, alternatively, as unreasonable delay; reconsideration was denied.
On appeal, Sinkler argued Rule 60’s “reasonable time” standard (not Rule 54’s 14 days) should govern § 406(b) motions following sentence‑four remands; the Second Circuit reviewed the legal question de novo.
The Second Circuit held Rule 54(d)(2)(B) governs § 406(b) motions but that its 14‑day period is equitably tolled until claimant/counsel receives notice of the Commissioner’s benefits calculation; Sinkler’s 6‑month delay was untimely and unreasonable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 54(d)(2)(B)’s 14‑day filing deadline or Rule 60’s “reasonable time” governs timeliness of § 406(b) motions after a sentence‑four remand	Rule 60 provides an equitable, reasonable filing window because benefits calc. often comes after remand	Rule 54 governs post‑judgment fee motions; its 14‑day rule should apply (subject to equitable tolling)	Rule 54(d)(2)(B) governs; 14‑day period is equitably tolled until notice of benefits calc. is received
Whether the 14‑day period should be tolled until the Commissioner calculates past‑due benefits	Tolling necessary and Rule 60 approach better addresses timing practicalities	Tolling Rule 54 until notice of award is issued resolves timing issue while preserving Rule 54	Court adopts tolling: 14‑day clock begins when claimant/counsel receives notice of the benefits calculation
Whether Sinkler’s § 406(b) motion was timely under Rule 54 as tolled	Motion was timely or reasonable despite delay because district practice varies and SSA allows 60 days for administrative fee requests	Motion untimely even with tolling; 6‑month delay not justified	Motion untimely: filed ~6 months after notice—far beyond tolled 14 days; denial affirmed
Whether, alternatively, the 6‑month delay was reasonable under a lenient standard	Lack of local notice and district practice justified considering the motion reasonable	No factual basis or explanation provided for the 6‑month delay; not reasonable	Even under a reasonableness review, delay unreasonable; no excuse shown

Key Cases Cited

Walker v. Astrue, 593 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2010) (applied Rule 54 to § 406(b) motions and tolled 14‑day period until notice of award)
McGraw v. Barnhart, 450 F.3d 493 (10th Cir. 2006) (applied Rule 60 reasonableness standard for § 406(b) timing)
Pierce v. Barnhart, 440 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2006) (applied Rule 54 to § 406(b) motions)
Bergen v. Commissioner of Social Security, 454 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2006) (applied Rule 54 to § 406(b) motions)
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002) (interpretation of § 406(b) reasonableness and 25% cap)
Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993) (sentence‑four remand is a "judgment" for post‑judgment deadlines)
Culbertson v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 517 (2019) (distinction between agency withholding for direct payment and court‑approved fee amount)