Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05279/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05279-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Defendant
Victor Podgorny
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

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

VICTOR PODGORNY,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-5279 MEJ

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES &

COSTS

I. BACKGROUND

Before the Court is plaintiff Victor Podgorny's Motion for Attorney's Fees, filed January 5,

2007. (Doc. #39.) On December 13, 2004, Plaintiff brought an action against the Commissioner of

the Social Security Agency (the "Agency") for social security disability benefits, contending that the

Administrative Law Judge incorrectly denied his application for benefits. Podgorny filed a motion

for summary judgment alleging that the Agency's failure to include certain documents in the

administrative record required remand. On July 29, 2005, this Court denied Podgorny's motion. 

Plaintiff subsequently appealed. 

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Agency violated its

own regulations requiring it to consider all relevant medical evidence in making a disability

determination. The Ninth Circuit remanded to the Agency. Podgorny now seeks $10,362.75 in

attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 

Upon review of the parties' papers, legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS

Case 3:04-cv-05279-MEJ Document 38 Filed 03/27/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

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 Page 2 of 4

Podgorny an award of $7,955.13 in attorney fees and $1,602.64 in costs for the reasons set forth

below.

II. DISCUSSION

Under the EAJA, the Court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing

party unless it finds that the position of the Agency was substantially justified. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 

In Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988), the United States Supreme Court defined

“substantially justified” as “justified in substance or in the main - that is, justified to a degree that

could satisfy a reasonable person.” This definition is “no different from the ‘reasonable basis both

in law and fact’ formulation adopted by the Ninth Circuit and the vast majority of other Courts of

Appeals that have addressed this issue.” Id. 

As the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the Agency, Podgorny is considered a prevailing

party. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302 (1993). Accordingly, the Court must determine

whether the Agency was substantially justified. The Agency argues that its position was

substantially justified for two reasons: (1) this Court found the ALJ's decision was supported by

substantial evidence, and (2) Circuit Judge Bybee dissented from the majority in the Ninth Circuit

opinion and agreed with this Court. However, the Ninth Circuit explicitly stated that the Agency

violated its own regulations requiring it to consider all relevant medical evidence in making a

disability determination. Given this holding, the Court cannot find that the Agency was

substantially justified in its position because "[a] court cannot excuse the denial of a mandatory

procedural protection simply because" there may have been sufficient evidence in the record for the

ALJ to discount the VA's determination. Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 546

(6th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, substantial justification does not exist and the Court must determine a

reasonable fee award. 

While there is no precise rule, the most useful starting point for determining a reasonable fee

is "the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly

Case 3:04-cv-05279-MEJ Document 38 Filed 03/27/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

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

1

 While not a social security matter, the Supreme Court noted that the standard in Hensley is "generally applicable

in all cases in which Congress has authorized an award of fees to a prevailing party." Id. at 433 n.7. 

Page 3 of 4

 rate." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 487 U.S. 424, 433 (1983).1

 If the Court finds that the amount claimed

is excessive, even where the claims were interrelated, nonfrivolous, and raised in good faith, it may

cut specific hours, or reduce the award overall. Id. at 436-37. The burden is on Podgorny to offer

adequate evidence of his efforts, and if his offering is inadequate, "the district court may reduce the

award accordingly." Id. at 433, 436.

The EAJA limits attorney fees to $125 per hour "unless the court determines that an increase

in the cost of living or other special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for

the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)A)(ii). Podgorny's request

includes cost of living increases for attorney time as follows: 2003-04 = $153.32/hr.; 2005 =

$156.75/hr.; 2006-07 = $163.34/hr. The Agency does not object to these hourly rates. 

Podgorny seeks $8,715.11 in attorney's fees and $1,602.64 in costs, as detailed in the

Amended Declaration of Ian M. Sammis, filed March 19, 2007. (Doc. #36.) The Agency raises

several specific objections to this request, which the Court shall now address.

1. Work performed during the administrative stage

First, the Agency argues that Podgorny seeks compensation for work performed during the

administrative stage of his case. Specifically, Podgorny's counsel and counsel's law clerk spent 1.5

hours and 5.3 hours, respectively, drafting and preparing the Appeals Council request for

reconsideration. (Sammis Decl. at 3, 6.) The Court agrees with the Agency and finds that the time

counsel and his law clerk spent on the administrative process is not compensable under the EAJA. 

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) (fees and expenses shall be awarded in any civil action, including

proceedings for judicial review of an agency's actions) (emphasis added); 42 U.S.C. § 406a (feeds

for services rendered at the administrative level have been entrusted by statute exclusively to the

Commissioner pursuant to Section 206(a) of the Social Security Act). As the request for

reconsideration is part of the administrative process, the Court must lower the fee request by

$759.98 ($229.98 for counsel's work and $530.00 for his law clerk's work at the administrative

Case 3:04-cv-05279-MEJ Document 38 Filed 03/27/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

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 Page 4 of 4

level).

2. Clerical work

Next, the Agency argues that a large portion of the law clerk's billed time constitutes clerical

or secretarial work and should be unrecoverable as overhead costs. The Agency cites Missouri v.

Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 n.10 (1989), in support of this argument. However, Missouri states that

"purely clerical or secretarial tasks should not be billed at a paralegal rate" and does not exclude

such tasks entirely. In fact, Sammis' declaration differentiates between legal work, which is billed at

$100.00 per hour, and clerical work, which is billed at $50.00 per hour. Accordingly, no deduction

in the requested amount is necessary based on this argument.

3. Costs

Podgorny also seeks $1,197.64 in costs and $405.00 in filing fees. The Agency's only

objection to this request is to the extent that he is seeking reimbursement for costs resulting from the

law clerk traveling to and from the Ninth Circuit oral argument in Pasadena. However, given the

law clerk's extensive involvement in researching and drafting the pleadings, the Court finds that it is

not unreasonable for the law clerk to accompany counsel to oral argument.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis above, the Court GRANTS Podgorny an award of $7,955.13 in

attorney fees and $1,602.64 in costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05279-MEJ Document 38 Filed 03/27/07 Page 4 of 4