Stephen Sprinkle v. Carolyn Colvin
777 F.3d 421
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Stephen Sprinkle applied for SSI in 2005 and, after administrative appeals, prevailed in district court in 2012: the court reversed the Commissioner and remanded for further consideration.
- Sprinkle sought EAJA attorney’s fees in December 2012 and requested $173.38/hr — the $125 statutory rate adjusted for inflation (CPI) to December 2009, when most work occurred.
- He submitted affidavits from multiple Social Security attorneys reporting non‑contingent hourly rates ($250–$500) and his own affidavit describing increased practice costs (rent, staff salaries) since 1996.
- The district court awarded EAJA fees but denied any cost‑of‑living enhancement, applying Mathews‑Sheets v. Astrue and requiring proof both that inflation increased the specific attorney’s costs and that no competent lawyer could be found at $125/hr.
- The district court also rejected additional evidence submitted on reconsideration as untimely and fixed the award at $125/hr; Sprinkle appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper evidentiary standard for EAJA cost‑of‑living adjustments | Sprinkle: CPI plus affidavits showing prevailing market rates justify CPI‑adjusted rate; Mathews‑Sheets standard satisfied | Commissioner: Mathews‑Sheets requires proof of inflation's effect on attorney’s specific costs and proof no competent attorney available at $125 | Court: Overrules Mathews‑Sheets to the extent it required both showings; CPI may be used and plaintiff need not prove unavailability of counsel at $125 |
| Use of CPI as appropriate measure of "cost of living" under EAJA | CPI is a practicable, reliable measure to adjust $125 for inflation | Government contended CPI alone can produce windfalls and may be inappropriate absent case‑specific proof | Court: CPI (national or regional) generally suffices to measure inflation for EAJA adjustments; courts retain discretion to accept alternative evidence from government |
| Required proof that requested rate aligns with market | Sprinkle: Affidavits from practitioners showing local prevailing rates suffice | Commissioner: Higher burden should be imposed to avoid windfalls | Court: Claimant must show requested rate does not exceed prevailing market rate for comparable counsel; a single sworn affidavit may suffice in some cases |
| Whether EAJA fee enhancement requires showing both cost‑of‑living and limited availability of counsel | Sprinkle: Not required to prove limited availability when seeking cost‑of‑living increase | Commissioner: Mathews‑Sheets requires a dual showing | Court: The statute’s disjunctive "or" means cost‑of‑living and special factors are alternative bases; dual showing not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews‑Sheets v. Astrue, 653 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2011) (previously articulated a stricter evidentiary approach for EAJA inflation adjustments)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988) (standard of review for EAJA fee awards; abuse of discretion)
- Raines v. Shalala, 44 F.3d 1355 (7th Cir. 1995) (interpretation of EAJA special‑factor test)
- Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (2008) (EAJA fees are based on prevailing market rates, not attorney costs)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (federal fee‑shifting statutes use prevailing market rates)
- Castaneda‑Castillo v. Holder, 723 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2013) (approved CPI adjustment for EAJA cost‑of‑living increases)
- Tchemkou v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2008) (applying CPI to determine inflation‑adjusted EAJA rates)
- Sosebee v. Astrue, 494 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2007) (EAJA fee proceedings should be summary, not complex administrative rate hearings)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (fee requests should not result in a second major litigation)
- Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2005) (calculating EAJA cost‑of‑living adjustments using CPI)