Vincent v. Commissioner of Social Security
651 F.3d 299
2d Cir.2011Background
- Vincent prevailed on appeal from the SSA denial of disability benefits and sought EAJA fees represented by Schneider.
- District court reduced fees by two-thirds, citing alleged record-development deficiencies caused by counsel as special circumstances.
- Court had remanded for gaps in the administrative record to be developed, citing ALJ’s failure to develop collateral issues and noncompliance with treatment/credibility defenses.
- District court criticized counsel for not addressing collateral issues at the administrative stage and for declining to file a brief to the Appeals Council.
- Court held that counsel’s lack of notice of credibility issues and ALJ’s duty to develop the record absolved counsel of responsibility for the evidentiary gaps.
- Court remanded to a different judge for consideration of full or revised EAJA fee award consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether special circumstances justify reducing EAJA fees. | Vincent argues district court abused discretion; failures were not counsel-driven. | Commissioner contends special circumstances warranted reduction. | No; special circumstances not applicable to counsel deficits here. |
| Whether district court acted properly in sua sponte billing-review and partial denial. | Schneider’s billing should be fully compensated; no notice of flaws. | Court validly scrutinized billing as part of fee determination. | District court erred by sua sponte criticizing billing without notice. |
| Whether novel issues in EAJA motion justify higher fee time. | Novel issues justified substantial EAJA time expenditure. | Billing fewer hours would suffice. | Time spent on fee motion justified; novel issues warrant consideration. |
| Whether district court correctly allocated responsibility for record gaps. | Schneider fulfilled duties; ALJ failed to develop record. | ALJ deficiencies were attributable to agency; counsel not responsible. | District court abused discretion in assigning fault to counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oguachuba v. INS, 706 F.2d 93 (2d Cir.1983) (counsel's misconduct can justify denial of EAJA fees; safety valve limits)
- United States v. 27.09 Acres of Land, 43 F.3d 769 (2d Cir.1994) (fee denial where claimant's contribution was marginal or duplicative)
- Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401 (U.S. 2004) (EAJA special circumstances as equitable safety valve; limits on fee denial)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (fee reasonableness; district court should justify reductions with concise reasoning)
- Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (2000) (non-exhaustion rules in Social Security appeals; Council develops issues)
- Burger v. Astrue, 363 Fed.Appx. 73 (2d Cir.2010) (reversal of EAJA fee reduction; related context to counsel duties)