N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
M AR T IN W . NELSON, ) No. 17-72752 ) Pe titione r, ) B R B No. 16-0519 ) v. ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) IC TSI OR EGON, INC .; SIGNAL ) M UTUAL INDEM

NITY ) ASSOC IATION, LTD. ) ) R e sponde nts. ) )

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B e ne fits R e vie w B oa

rd Subm itte d Nove m

be r 5, 2018 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SESSIONS, *** Distric t Judge
. M artin Ne lson, pe titions for re vie wof the de c ision of theUnite d State s 

# FIL ED NOV 19 2018 M O LLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

*** The Honora

ble W illia m K. Se ssions III, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ve rm ont, sitting by de signa t ion.De pa

rtm e nt of La

bor’ s B e ne fits R e vie w B oa rd (B R B ) whic h a ffirm e d the award of fe e s m a de by the Adm inistra t ive La w Judge (ALJ) to Ne lson’ s attorne y , C h arle s R obinowitz . W e de ny

the pe tition. (1) Ne lson first a sse rts tha t the B RB e rre d whe n

it a ffirm e d the ALJ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t R obinowitz

wa s not e ntitle d to re c e ive $425 pe r hour for his
se rvic e s in this ma tte r. W e disa gre e . Ne lson wa s e ntitle d to obta in a n a w ard of a re a sona ble attorne y ’ s fe e for R obinowitz

on a c c ount of thelatte r’ s se rvic e s. Se e 33 U.S.C . § 928(a )
. Esse ntia lly , tha

t involve s the use of the lode sta r m e thod, “ whic h re quire s
m ultiply ing a

re a sona ble hourly

ra te by the num be r of hours re a sona

bly e xpe nde d on the c a se .” Shirrod v . Dire c tor , 809 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th C ir. 2015). In turn, that pla c e d the burde n on Ne lson to show tha t the hourly

ra te he sought for R obinowitz

wa s “ ‘ in line with [the ra te s] pre v a iling in the c om m unity [Portla

nd, Ore gon] for sim i la

r se rvic e s by

la wy e rs of re a s ona

b ly c om pa ra ble skill, e xpe rie nc e and re puta

tion.’ ” Id. ; se e also C

hriste nse n v . Ste v e doring Se rv s. of Am. , 557 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th C ir. 2009). On this re c o rd, the ALJ c ould re a sona bly de te rm ine that the fe e re que ste d by

Ne lson for R obinowitz

wa s not supporte d by

the
e vide nc e . Se e Van Sk

ik e v . Dire c tor , 557 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th C ir. 2009); se e also C hriste nse n , 557 F.3d a

t 1053. For e xam

ple , one of the two de c la

ra tions did not 2e xpre s sly

support the re q

ue s te d rate , a

nd the othe r e sse ntia lly

re lie d upon a

surve y of attorne y s who we re involve d in c om m e rc ia l litiga

tion, whic h the ALJ a

nd B RB , in the e xe rc ise of the ir disc re t ion, 1 c ould prope rly re je c t a s a c om

pa ra tor. The y re lie d, inste a d, on the 2012 Ore gon B ar Surve y (the Surve y ) re sults for the Portla nd, Ore gon a

re a . Thus, theALJ re sorte d to c re ation of a proxy m arke t rate for the purpose of c a l c ulating theprope r ra te for R obinowitz ’ s se rvic e s. (2) In c a lc ulating a

n hourly ra te for R obinowitz , the ALJ re lie d upon two
are a s-of-pra c tic e groups in the Surve y : “ C i vil Litiga

tion, Pla intiff (e x c lude s pe rsona l injury)” and “ C ivil Litiga tion, Pla intiff – Pe rsona l Injury
. ” 2 W e de te c t no
e rror in those c hoic e s. The ALJ use d the portion of those groups of la

wy e rs in the 75th pe rc e ntile
. Ne lson a sse rts tha t the ALJ e rre d

whe n he did so be c a

use R obinowitz

should ha

ve be e n pla c e d in the 95th pe rc e n tile of those groups. Howe ve r, the e vide n c e , whic h is la rge ly the sa m e a s tha t whic h Ne lson re lie d upon to a s se rt tha

t R o binowitz

wa s e ntitle d

to $425 pe r hour in thefirst pla c e , doe s not
c om pe l a de te rm ination tha

t R obinowitz

wa s in the 95th pe rc e ntile
. While it c an be argue d tha t e ve n though Robinowitz is not in the

95th pe rc e ntile , he should still

1 Se e C h r iste nse n , 557 F.3d a

t 1052; se e also Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–63 (9th C i r. 2009) (e n ba nc ). 2 Se e Shirrod

, 809 F.3d a

t 1088. Note

tha t the ALJ a lso indic ate d tha t he would re ly

upon pra c tic e group “ Ge n e ra l (no a re a ove r 50%).” 3be highe r tha n the 75th pe rc e n tile , the re is no e vide nc e re ga rding wha

t tha t pe rc e ntile should beand why R obinowitz

is in it. The

ALJ ha d two re le v ant
c hoic e s, 75th a

n d 95th, be fore him , a

nd ha v ing re je c te d the latte r, he c hose the form e r. Of c ourse , a s ha s ofte n be e n sa id, the se tting of fe e s is not suppose d to be
a “ gre e n-e y e sha d e ” ope ra tion. 3 The re wa s no a b use of disc re tion. (3) Ne lson a lso a sse rts tha t the B RB e rre d whe n it a ffirm e d the ra te se t by the A LJ for the se nior a ssoc iate in R obinowitz ’ s firm . On this re c ord we se e no a buse o f disc re tion in the

se tting of the

am ount a warde d for the work of the se nior
a ssoc iate . (4) Fina l ly , Ne lson a sse rts tha t the ALJ e rre d whe n he se t the ra te s for R obinowitz ’ s pa

ra le ga l. R e i m

burse m e n t for pa

ra le g a l work is a

va ila ble , 4 and should bec a l c ulat e d at the a ppropria te m arke t rate . 5 Aga in, on the re c ord of this
c a se the se tting of the

ra te in que stion wa s not a n a buse of disc re tion. Pe tition DENIED.

3 Fox v . Vic e , 563 U.S. 826, 838, 131 S. Ct. 2205, 2216, 180 L. Ed. 2d 45 (2011).

4 Se e 20 C
. F.R . § 703.132(a); se e also id . § 802.203(d)(2), (4).
5 Se e Missouri v . J

e nk ins e x re l. Agy e i , 491 U.S. 274, 288–89, 109 S. C t. 2463, 2471–72, 105 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1989); Quintana v . C re sc e nt W harf & W are house C o. , 18 B e n . R e v. B d. Se rv. 254, 256 (1986). 4