Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00147/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00147-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE EIB,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

of Social Security

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-00147 CRB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s petition for fees and costs under the Equal Access

to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. section 2412. Defendant concedes that plaintiff is

entitled to an award of fees, but opposes a “special factors” fee enhancement. After careful

review and consideration of the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s

petition, and awards a total of $8,883.31 in attorney’s fees and costs. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff originally filed an application for Social Security benefits on January 14,

1999, alleging that she was unable to work due to periodic naseua, pain, loss of energy and

diarrhea. These symptoms resulted from several procedures to remove and subsequently

treat a benign tumor in her abdominal area, gastritis and more. 

After several denials of her application, an administrative hearing was held before

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Charles Reite, on October 26, 1999. Following an

Case 3:05-cv-00147-CRB Document 19 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

unfavorable decision, a request for review was granted which effectively vacated the

decision and remanded the case to the ALJ for further proceedings. On May 22, 2003, a

second hearing was held before ALJ Richard Wurdeman, who subsequently issued an

unfavorable decision. The Appeals Council refused to further review the case, thereby

triggering plaintiff’s right to judicial review under 42 U.S.C. section 405(g). Plaintiff

subsequently filed a civil action in this Court.

While the case was pending review by this Court, the parties stipulated to a remand

with instructions for payment of benefits, both past and currently due, to the plaintiff.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff now petitions this Court for an award of attorney’s fees, including an

enhancement for “special factors,” under 28 U.S.C. section 2412(d). Defendant concedes

that the Social Security Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified, and that as a

result, plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees based on the EAJA statutory cap of $125 per

hour, adjusted for a cost of living increase to $151.07 per hour for 2004, and $155.47 per

hour for 2005, for a total of $5,573.31. 

Defendant, however, opposes the $3,310 “special factors” enhancement. Thus, the

only question for the Court is whether special factors were present.

A. Legal Standard

The EAJA provides that fees above the statutory cap should not be awarded unless the

Court determines that “an increase in the cost of living, or a special factor,” is present. 28

U.S.C. section 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii). In reference to special factors, “Congress intended for

courts to deviate from the statutory cap only if there was limited availability of ‘attorneys

having some distinctive knowledge or skill needful for the litigation in question’” Pirus v.

Bowen, 869 F.2d 536, 540 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 572

(1988)). 

The Ninth Circuit has “established a three prong test” to determine whether a special

factor justifies a higher fee. Al Jawad v. Barnhart, 370 F.Supp.2d 1077, 1089 (S.D. Cal.

2005). The plaintiff must show that (1) plaintiff’s attorney has “developed a practice

Case 3:05-cv-00147-CRB Document 19 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

specialty or possesses distinctive knowledge and skills,” (2) these skills and/or knowledge

are “necessary to the litigation,” and (3) “similar skills could not have been obtained at” the

statutory cap rate. Al Jawad, 370 F.Supp.2d at 1089 (citing Pirus, 859 F.2d at 541-42).

B. Plaintiff’s satisfaction of the “special factors” three prong test

i. Distinctive knowledge or skills

The Court finds the plaintiff has satisfied the first prong. Plaintiff’s counsel, as a

licensed physician, qualifies as possessing a distinctive knowledge and skill. Plaintiff’s

counsel is also one of the only practicing physicians in the United States acting as attorney

for persons seeking judicial review of disability claims in federal court. He thus has an

“identifiable practice specialty, such as patent law, or knowledge of a foreign law or

language.” Pierce, 487 U.S. 572. 

ii. Needful or necessary

The primary issue is the second prong: whether Dr. Michael Howard’s distinctive

knowledge and skills were “necessary” or “needful” for the litigation. Pierce 487 U.S. 572. 

Plaintiff and defendant agree that the case was remanded because of a legal error made by

the ALJ in disregarding undisputed testimony of his own medical expert. However,

defendant suggests that this fact alone means that Dr. Howard’s skills and distinctive

knowledge were not necessary or needful for the litigation. The Court disagrees. The Court

finds that the reason this case reached federal court at all, and was finally remanded for

payment of benefits, was because of plaintiff’s counsel’s medical expertise. The undisputed

evidence shows that plaintiff’s original attorney dropped the case, in part, based on his

conclusion that plaintiff had no demonstrable objective disease to explain her symptoms,

making her case too difficult to pursue at any level. Dr. Howard was able to recognize

plaintiff’s disease pattern as “classical dumping syndrome,” and used his distinctive

knowledge as a medical doctor to provide the medical justifications for a favorable decision.

Counsel’s expertise was “needful” and “necessary” to the litigation, because the case would

never have even gotten off of the ground, but for plaintiff’s counsel’s expertise. 

Case 3:05-cv-00147-CRB Document 19 Filed 10/07/05 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

iii. Skills and/or distinctive knowledge available at EAJA statutory cap

The Court also finds that counsel’s unique skills and distinctive knowledge were not

available at the statutory cap adjusted for inflation. It is undisputed that plaintiff’s counsel is

or was the lead attorney in 52 social security judicial review cases in federal court, while no

other attorney in plaintiff’s County of Mendocino has even a listed case; thus there is indeed

a very limited availability of qualified attorneys to the plaintiff--if any--and none with

counsel’s medical background. 

C. Fee Enhancement

Plaintiff requests a $100 an hour fee enhancement based on the prevailing rate paid to 

attorneys in “similarly under-served jurisdictions.” Since defendant concedes plaintiff’s

counsel’s work time to be 33.1 hours, this fee enhancement will total $3,310. Defendant

does not offer any evidence to disprove plaintiff’s contention that this enhancement is in line

with the market rate in Mendocino County, and the Court finds that the rates of $251.07 per

hour in 2004 and $255.47 in 2005 are reasonable. Therefore, the Court awards the fee

enhancement of $100 per hour based on special factors.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court AWARDS plaintiff costs and fees pursuant to the

EAJA in the total amount of $8,883.31, which includes a $100 an hour fee enhancement (for

33.1 hours), totaling $3,310. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2005 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\CRBALL\2005\0147\ORDERforattyfees.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-00147-CRB Document 19 Filed 10/07/05 Page 4 of 4