Turner v. Commissioner of Social SEC.
680 F.3d 721
6th Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Turner, Campbell, Corns, and attorney Cybriwsky sought EAJA fees after sentence-four remands of SSA benefits cases.
- Turner’s fee assignment to Cybriwsky was conditioned on Turner's receipt of a benefits award; the court voided the assignment under the Anti-Assignment Act.
- District court held EAJA fees could be awarded only if the claimant incurred fees by payment or legal obligation, effectively requiring a benefits award.
- District court concluded no incurrence of fees due to remand without benefits, aligning with Turner, 764 F. Supp. 2d 864 (E.D. Ky. 2010).
- Campbell and Corns, represented contingency-fee, sought EAJA fees after sentence-four remands; district courts denied relying on Turner.
- Sixth Circuit reverses, holding claimants incur EAJA fees upon sentence-four remand if they have an express or implied legal obligation to pay counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether incurring EAJA fees requires paying or owing fees | Turner/Cybriwsky: incurrence occurs when there is an obligation to pay, regardless of later voided assignment. | SSA/Turner: incurrence requires actual payment or legal debt; no incurrence without benefits award. | Incurrence occurs upon legal obligation to pay, not payment; assignment voiding does not bar incurrence. |
| Whether a contingency-fee assignment voided by AAA affects EAJA entitlement | Turner/Cybriwsky: even if assignment is void, incurrence exists via obligation to pay over any award. | SSA: AAA voids assignment; no incurrence unless there is direct payment obligation. | Assignment voided under AAA does not eliminate incurrence; claimants incur fees if there is an obligation to pay. |
| Whether Campbell was entitled to costs under EAJA | Campbell is a prevailing party on sentence-four remand and thus entitled to costs as part of EAJA. | Costs denial was appropriate; EAJA limits to attorney fees or costs only under specific conditions. | Campbell is entitled to costs under EAJA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murkeldove v. Astrue, 635 F.3d 784 (5th Cir.2011) (incurrence via contractual obligation to pay over fees upon remand)
- Gotro v. R & B Realty Grp., 69 F.3d 1485 (9th Cir.1995) (incurred fees when obligated to pay over any fee award)
- Phillips v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 924 F.2d 1577 (Fed.Cir.1991) (incurred fees where obliged to pay over any fee award)
- Cornella v. Schweiker, 728 F.2d 978 (8th Cir.1984) (EAJA fees incurred in pro bono representation)
- Ed A. Wilson, Inc. v. Gen. Serv. Admin., 126 F.3d 1406 (Fed.Cir.1997) (industry uniformity: incurrence not contingent on chargeable debt)
- Watford v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir.1985) (represented without charge may still receive EAJA fees)
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1993) (sentence-four remand recognizes prevailing party status for EAJA)
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (U.S. 2002) (fee awards under EAJA can be paid in a way that aligns with contingency fee norms)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1988) (conceptual backdrop for reasonable interpretation of fee-shifting statutes)
- Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (U.S. 2008) (interpretation of attorney's fees under fee-sh shifting statutes)
- Bryant v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 578 F.3d 443 (6th Cir.2009) (EAJA fee payments directed to claimant absent offset when assigned)