## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1739 J EN NIFE R S TEW ART, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. M ICHAEL J. A S T RUE, Com m i ssi onero fS oci alS ecuri ty, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 2:0 6-cv-02 074-DGB

—David G . Bernth al, Magis trate Judge

. A RG UE D M AR CH 3, 2009

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 2, 2009

Befo re B AUER, K ANN E , a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. P ERC UR I AM . A m agi str ate j ud ge, pre si ding by conse nt, ove rturned the denia l of So ci al Se curi ty d i sabi l i ty be ne fi ts t o J enni ferS te war t an d r emande d he r c as e to the agen cy, b u t then de nied her ap p li cation f or attorne y’s fees . The m agi str ate j ud ge concl ud ed that the Com m i ssio n er of Soc ial Se c u rit y w as su b st an t i a lly j u st ified in opposi ng S tewart’ s sui t to ove rturn the denia lo fbene fi ts, an d thu s Stew art w as no t ent itl ed to an aw ard of attor-2 N o. 08

- 1739 ney’ s fees . W e rev er se that deter m i nati on a nd r em and fo r entr y o fan a w ar d offees .

I . B AC KGR OUND I n Feb rua ry 2003, Stew art ap p li ed fo r D isab il ity Ins uran c e Benefi ts and Supp l em entalS ecuri ty I ncom e, claim ing tha t she w as d isabled b y b ipolar disord er, obs e s s i v e - c o mpul s i v e di s o r de r, a nd fib r o myal gi a. A fterher appli cation was denie d adm i ni str ati vel y, S tewart re que st ed a he ar i ng be f o r e ana dm i ni st r at i ve l aw j udg e. The A L J ap p l i e d t h e fiv e-s te p an aly sis , see 20 C. F
. R. § 4 16. 920( a)

- ( g) , and concl ud ed tha t St ew ar t was not di sabl ed. The ALJ fi r stc o nc l ude d tha t, a l th o ug h S te wart had previ ousl y work ed as a data- entry c l er k, wait re ss, r es ta ur an t m an ag er, pa y r o l lc l er k, a nd b abys i tt er, s he ha d no t en g ag ed i n s ubs ta nt i alg ainfule m pl o y m en t sinc e th e al l eg ed o ns eto fhe r di sabi l i ty
. The A L J ne xt fou n d th at Ste w ar t’s bip ola r d iso rd er , obs es siv e-c om p u lsive disord er, a nd fibrom yalgia allcons titute d severe im p air m en ts , bu t t h at th es e i m p air m en ts , in d ivid u ally or col l e c t i v e l y, di d n o tme e to r e qu a la l i s t i ngtha t wo ul d a ut o mat i c a l l y r e nder S t e wa r tdi s ab l e d. T he ALJ chose notto c re ditS tewart’ s t est i m ony about her al l ege d pai n and functi onall i m i tat i ons because , acc or ding to the A LJ, the m edi cal re cor d di d no t cor robor ate that t e s t i mo n y . T h e A L J a l s o f o u n d th a tth e o p i n i o n s o fS t e war t’ s tr ea tingp hy si ci ana nd t r ea tingps y ch i at r i st, who b ot h thought that she was notcapabl e o fwork- re l ate d activities, w ere incon sisten t w ith oth er eviden ce an d w ere not contr ol l i ng. A c c or ding to the AL J, S tewart re tained th e r es i dualfunc ti o na lc apa ci tyt o pe r f o r m wor ki n-N o. 08

- 1739 3 vol vi ng si m ple , r outi ne tasks so l ong as she was not r e qu i r e d t o l i ft mor e tha n t we nty po un ds a t a ti m e o r c ar ry ob j ec ts w eig h in g o v e r te n p ou n d s o r c on st an tly i nt e r a c twi th c o - wo r k e r s . T he s e l i mi t a t i o ns , the ALJ concl ud ed , p re vente d Ste w ar t fro m per f or m i ng herpast re l evantwork but noto therj obs i n the nati onaleco nom y, i nc l udi ngtho se o fl au ndr y wor k er, s o r te r, a nd pun ch

b oa rd as se m b ler . Th e A L J d en ied S te w ar t’s cla im in N o ve m be r 2 00 5, a nd the Appea l s Cou nc il a ffi r m ed th e dec i si o n. St ew ar t sought re vi ew i n the dist ri ct cour t. She ar gued that the AL J erred in rej ecting the o pini ons ofher tr ea tin g physi ci an and tr eat i ng psychi atr i st. S he al so m ai ntai ned that the AL J di d not a d eq uatel y e stabl i sh th ats he c o ul d p er f o r m o th erwor ki n the na ti o na le co nom y. Fin ally , S t ew ar t c on te n d ed th at th e A p p ea ls Coun c i l e r r e d i n f a i l i ng t o g i v e a de qu a t e we i g htto ne w ev i den ce s ubmi tt ed afte r the ALJ ’ s dec i si o n. T he m agi str ate j ud ge concl ud ed that the ne w ev i dence w as i m m ate ri al, since i t a pp lied t o the t i m e per i od after the A L J had denie d Ste w ar t’ s a pp l i cati on f orbene fi ts. I n additi on, the j ud ge conc luded thatthe A LJ had adequa te l y e xpl aine d hi s r ea so ns f o r de cl i ni ngt o g i ve c o ntr ol l i ng weight to the tw o tr eating physi ci ans’ o pini ons. The m agi str ate j ud ge agr eed with Stew ar t, however, that the A L J l ac k ed a su ffi ci en t ba si s to c o nc l ude tha t sh e co ul d fi nd o th erwor ki n the na ti ona l ec o no m y . The j u d g e n o t e d th a tth e AL J h a d f a i l e d t o i n c l u d e a l lo fS t e war t’ s l i m i tat i ons w hen he pos ed a hy potheti calquesti on to a vo cati on al ex pert. The hypothe ti caldi d not m enti on St ew ar t’ s m oder ate di ffi cul ti es i n m ai ntai ni ng co ncentr a-4 N o. 08

- 1739 ti on, per si ste nce, and pace. Fur ther m or e, the m agi str ate e x p l a i n e d , th e AL J h a d p u r p o r t e d l y r e l i e d o n “n ew a nd m ate ri alev i d en c e” to concl ud e that S tewart’ s r esi du al func ti o na l ca pac i ty was ev en m o r e f av o r ab l e than the sta te age ncy’ s doctor s bel i eve d, and y et i n hi s d ec i si on th e AL J ne ve r i den ti fi ed whate vi den ce s upported the change. Lastl y, the m agi st ra te j ud ge decl i ned to rul e o n S te war t’ s as se r ti o n tha t th e vo ca ti o na le xpe r t’ s te st i m o ny w as not consi ste nt with the Di c tio n ar y o fOccupati onal T itle s, sin c e a d d itio n al t es tim on y on re m a n d w ou ld m ake the i ssue i rr elevant. The m agi str ate j ud ge ther ef o r e g r an te d S te war t’ s m o ti o n fo r s um m ar y j udg m en t and re m anded the case to the A LJ forfurtherpro ceedi ngs. St ew ar t then fi l ed a pet i ti on f orat torney’ s fees u n d er the Equal A ccess to Justi ce Act ( EA J A ) , wh i ch dir ects a cour t t o aw ar d fe es to a pre vai l i ng par ty i n a s uitag ai nst the Unite d Sta tes unl ess the gov er n m en t’ s pos i ti on was su bs tantial l y j us ti fi ed o r s pec i alc i r cumst an ce s m ak e th e aw ar d u nj u st
. See 28 U
. S. C. § 2 412( d)(1)(A ); Sos e b e ev. Ast r ue, 49 4 F .3d 58 3, 58 6-8 7 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); M uh ur v. A shcroft, 38 2 F
. 3d 653, 65 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. T h e m agi str ate j udg e den i ed th e pet i ti o n; the pert inen t par t o fthe c ou rt ’s o p in ion rea d s in fu ll: The Co ur t ha s ca r eful l y r ev i ewe d the re co r d, i nc l udi ng its ow n O rd er . W h ile th e C ou r t d i d o rd er rem an d , i t d id n otm ak e a n y fin d in g in th e O rd er t h at th e p os itio n of th e U n ite d Sta te s w as n ots u b st an tia lly j u st ifi ed. In f ac t, a rev i ew o ftha t Or derc o nfi r m s Defen dan t’ s as serti o n tha t th e Cou r t r ej ec te d s ev er alo fthe Pl ai nti ff’ s cl ai m s of e rr or . Even as to the poi nt ar gued succes sfully b y Pl ai nti ff, the Co u rt d i d not a nd doesN o. 08

- 1739 5

no t no w f ee ltha t th e po si ti o n taken by the De fen dan t C om m iss ion of So c ial Se c u rit y w as n otsu b st an tia lly j us tified, espe cially w he n th e ent irety ofDe fend an t’s p ositi on is cons idered

. A ccordi ng ly, de spi tethe r ea so nab l en es s o fthe fee s an d the f ac t th atPl aint i ffw as th e pr ev ai l i ngpa r ty, P lai nt i ffi s no t en ti tl ed to fee s an d expenses und erthe A ct.

I I . DI S C US S I ON T he EA JA prov ides that a district cou rt m ay aw ard at to r ne y ’ s fee s where ( 1) the c l ai m an t was a “ pr ev ai l i ng par ty,” ( 2) the g o ve r nm en t’ s po si ti o n was no t “s ubs ta nti al l y j usti fi ed, ” ( 3) n o sp eci alci rcum sta nces m ake an awar d unj us t, an d ( 4) th e cl ai m an t fi l ed a ti m el y a nd c o mpl ete a pp l i c a t i o n wi th the di s t r i c tc o ur t
. 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 41 2(d )(1) (A ); Tch em k o u v . M u k a sey, 51 7 F
. 3d 506, 50 9 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ); K recio ch v. U nited Sta tes , 3 1 6 F
. 3 d 6 8 4, 68 7 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3)
. The Co m m i ss i one r d is put es o nl y tha t th e s e c o n d p r o n gi s s a t i s fi e d

. A p o s i t i o n t a k e n b y th e C o mm iss ion er is su b s t an tia lly j u st ified if it h as a re as on ab le ba si s i n f ac t an d l aw, a nd if th ere i s a r ea so nabl e co nn ec tio n be tw ee n th e fac ts an d th e le ga l th eo ry . SeePier ce v. U nde rwood, 487U .S. 55 2, 56 5 (1 98 8); C o nra d v . B a rnh a rt, 434 F. 3d 987, 990 ( 7th Cir
. 2006 )
. The C om m i ssi oner bear s the burden of proving that both hi s p re -l i ti gat i on c on d u c t, in c lu d in g t h e A L J’s d ec isio n its elf, an d h is l i t i g a t i o n po s i t i o n we r e s ub s t a nt i a l l y j us t i fi e d. Se eConrad, 434 F. 3d at 990; G o lem biew ski v. B a rnh a rt, 38 2 F
. 3d 721, 72 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04 ). W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo ffees unde r the EAJ A f o r abus e o fdi sc r et i o n. U nd e rwood, 48 76 N o. 08

- 1739 U .S. at 5 62 ; C un nin gh a m v. B a rnh a rt, 44 0 F
. 3d 862, 86 4 (7th C ir. 2006). I n ar gui n g that the m agi str ate j ud ge abused hi s di scr eti on, S tewart fi rs t co ntends that t h e m agi str ate j ud ge denie d an a wa r d o ffe e s b a s e d in pa r to n the f a c ttha t sh e di d no t pr ev ai lon ever y c ha l l en g e sh e m ade t o the A L J’s d ec isio n . Sh e a rg u es th at th e jud ge u n fair ly p en ali zed herf orr ai si ng m ult i ple argum ents and ci tes Hensley v. E ck erha rt, 46 1 U.S
. 42 4, 43 5 ( 1983 ) , f orthe propos i ti on th at sh e is en tit led t o f e es for e ffor ts ex p en d ed on all ar gu m ents, ev en o nes that di d not pre vai l

. W e di sag re e. I t i s true tha t EA J A fees a r e no t det er m i ne d b y the num bero fsuccess fu l argum ents, but a par ty’ s s uccess o n a s i ngl e cl ai m wil lr ar el y b e di sposi ti ve o f w hether t h e gov er n m en t’s ov er all p os itio n w as su b st an tia lly j u st ified

. Se eU nde rwood, 487 U
. S. at56 9; Br i c ks , In c . v . EPA , 426 F. 3d 918, 92 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05); U nited S t a t es v. Ha llm a rk Cons t r . Co. , 2 0 0 F. 3d 1076, 1080 (7th C ir. 2000). E A JA fees ar e a pp ro pri ate w h en the go ver nm ent’ s l i ti gat i on po si ti o ns a nd o ve r al lpr e- l i ti g at i o n c o nduc t, i nc l udi ng th e A L J’s d ec isio n its elf, lac k e d a rea so n ab le b as is in law an d fac t. Se eConrad, 434 F.3d at99 0; Gole m b i e wski, 38 2 F. 3d at 724. In t hi s ca se, the m agi str ate j ud ge

— sim p ly by proper l y a sse ssing the go ver nm ent’ s co nd uct a s a w h ole

— di d n o ti g no r e o r l e s s e n the f o r c e o fi t s e a r l i er re m an d ord er an d there b y e n ga ge in “ ar gu m en t c ou n tin g.” Regar dle ss ofthe basi s o fthe re m and o rder, the j ud ge w as re q u ire d t o l oo k at the go vernm ent’ s ove ra l l conduct. In o th erwor ds, S te war t i s i nc o rrect i n a ss um i ngtha t th e dist ri ct c ourt coul d consi der in i ts substa nti al

-j usti fi cati on d et er m in at ion on ly th e o n e s u c c es sfu l issu e d isc u s se d inN o. 08

- 1739 7 the r em and or der, and that i ts consi derat i on o fo ther conte nti ons const i tutes “a rgum ent c ounti ng. ” See Ha llm a rk Cons t r . Co. , 20 0 F
. 3d at 1081
. S te war t’ s se co nd c o nt en ti o n, ho wev er, ha s tr ac ti o n. S he ar gue s th atfee s sh o ul d ha ve b ee n a war ded be ca us e th e A LJ c ontr avene d l ongs tandi ng ag ency re gul ati ons, as w el las j ud i ci alpre cedent, bo th i n d et er m i ni ng her re si du alfuncti onal capaci ty and in f or m ula ti ng the hypotheti calgi ven t o the v oca ti onal expert. W e a gr ee w i th St ew ar t o n each poi nt. A s t o the for m er, an A LJ m ust ar ti cul ate i n a r ati onalm anner the r eas ons f orhi s a sse ssm en t o f a c laim an t’s res id u al fu n c tio n al c ap ac ity , an d in re vie w in g t h a t d e t er m in at ion a c ou rtm u st co n fin e it se lf to the r eas ons supp l i ed by the A L J. Get ch v. As t r ue, 539 F. 3d 473, 481- 82 ( 7th Cir . 200 8); Blakes ex re l
. Wol f ev. B a rnh a rt, 33 1 F .3d 5 65 , 569 (7t h C ir. 20 03 ); Steele v. B a rnh a rt, 2 9 0 F
. 3 d 9 3 6 , 94 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 )
. T he r e f o r e the ALJ hi m sel fm ust co nnect the ev i dence t o th e co ncl usi on thro ugh an “a ccurat e a nd l ogi calbr i dge. ” Berge rv. As t r ue, 51 6 F .3d 53 9, 54 4 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); Gil e s ex re l
. Gi l e s v. As t r ue, 48 3 F.3 d 4 83 , 4 87 -88 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); R iba ud o v. B a rnh a rt, 45 8 F.3d 580 , 5 8 4 ( 7th Cir. 2006); D ixo n v . M a ssan a ri, 27 0 F
. 3d 1171 , 1 17 6 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1)
. In thi s i ns ta nc e, a l th o ugh the A LJ di d discuss the evi dence thatwas d ev eloped after th e state-age nc y ph ysicians h ad l ast review ed Stew art’s m edi ca lr ec o r ds, the ALJ fa i l ed to s pec i fy what“ ne w and m aterial evid en ce” led him to sub stitut e his o w n, m ore f avo rabl e a sse ssm ent o fS tewart’ s r esi du alfuncti onal c a pa c i t y f o r tha to ftho s e p hy s i c i a ns . F o r e xa mpl e , the ALJ m en ti o ns S te war t’ s ab i l i tyt o co o k, cl ea n, do l au ndr y, a nd va c u u m ath er h om e, b u t th os e ac tiv itie s d o n otn ec es sa rily8 N o. 08

- 1739

es tabl i shtha t a per so n i s ca pab l e o fe ng ag i ngi n s ubs ta ntia l p h ys ica l ac tiv ity
. Di a z v . P r u d e n t i a l In s . C o . o f A m. , 49 9 F.3 d 64 0, 64 8 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); Z u r a w s k i v . Ha lter, 24 5 F
. 3d 88 1, 88 7 ( 7 t h C i r. 20 01 ); C liffo rd v . Ap fel , 22 7 F
. 3d 863, 87 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0)
. The ALJ s ho ul d ha ve ex pl aine d a ny i nc o nsi st en ci es b etwee n Stew ar t’ s ac ti vi ti es o fda i l y l i ving an d th e m ed ica l ev id en c e. C a r r a d ine v . B a rnh a rt, 36 0 F
. 3d 75 1, 75 5 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); Zur awsk i, 2 45 F
. 3d at8 87
. The Com m issi oneras ser ts the AL J ’ s di scussi on o fev i dence afterthe p h ysi ci ans’ l astr evi ew was re aso nabl e, ev en w ithou t sp ecifyi ng w ha t evide nc e f a c tored i nt o his de term i nati on. Thi s pos i ti on i s contr ar y t o our re peated hol ding that a denia l of benefi ts cannot be s ustained w h ere a n A LJ f ai l ed to ar ti cul ate the base s o fhi s a sse ssm en t o f a c laim an t’s im p air m en t. See B rind isi v. B a rnh a rt, 31 5 F .3d 78 3, 78 6-8 7 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); Sc o tt v. B a r nh a rt, 29 7 F.3 d 58 9, 59 5-9 6 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ); Ste el e, 29 0 F
. 3d at 940- 41. Lik ew i se, the f orm ula ti on o fthe hypotheti calgi ven t o the voc atio nalexper t a l so contr adic ts j ud i ci alpre cedent. W hen an A LJ poses a hypotheti cal questi on to a v oca ti o na le xpe r t, the que st i o n musti nc l ude a l ll i m itati o ns su p p or te d by m e d i c al e vid en c e in th e re c or d

. See B a yli ss v. B a rnh a rt, 42 7 F
. 3d 12 11 , 1 217 ( 9th Ci r. 20 05); Young v. B a rnh a rt, 362 F .3 d 99 5, 10 03 (7t h C ir. 20 04 ); Indoranto v. B a rnh a rt, 374 F.3d 47 0, 47 4 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); S te ele, 29 0 F.3 d at94 2; see also B o yd v. A pfel , 239 F. 3d 698, 70 7 ( 5th Cir
. 20 01); D eck er v. C ha ter, 8 6 F
. 3d 95 3, 9 55 ( 10 thCi r. 1996 )
. M or e s pe ci fi cal l y, the questi on m ust a ccount f or docum ented l i m i tat i ons of“co ncentr ati on, per si ste nce orpace. ” R a m irez v . B a rnh a rt, 372 F.3d 546 , 5 54 (3d Cir. 2004 ); Y o ung, 362 F.3d at10 04 ; Ka sarsky v . B a rnh a rt, 335N o. 08

- 1739 9 F.3 d 53 9, 54 4 (7th C ir. 20 03 ); B urn s v. B a rnh a rt, 31 2 F
. 3d 113, 12 3 ( 3 d C i r . 200 2); Tho m a s v. B a rnh a rt, 27 8 F
. 3d 947, 95 6 (9t h C ir. 20 02 ); New to n v . Ch a ter, 92 F. 3d 688, 695 (8 t h C ir. 1996 )
. The Com m i ssi oneras ser ts that the A L J acc ounted f orS tewart’ s l i m i tat i ons ofco ncentr ati on, per si ste n c e, an d pa ce b y r es tr i ct i ngthe inq uir y t o s i m pl e, r o ut i ne tas ks that do not re quir e co nsta n t inter acti ons w i th co

w orkers or th e gen eral p ub li c. W e ha ve rej ecte d th e v ery sa m e co nt en ti o n be f o r e. In Yo un g v . B a rnh a rt, we hel d that a hypotheti calwith e xactl y t hose speci fi cati ons did not adequa te ly acco unt f orthe pla i nti ff’ s m edi call i m i tat i ons, i ncl ud i ng an “i m pai rm ent i n c on centr ati on. ” 3 62 F. 3d at 1004
. Th e C om m issi o n e r c ont inu es to d efend the A L J’ s at te m pt to ac co unt f o r m en ta l i m pai r m en ts by r es tr i ct i ng the hy potheti calto “s i m ple ” t asks, an d w e a nd o ur s i ste r co ur ts c o nt i nue t o rej ec t the Com m i ss i o ne r ’ s po si ti o n. Craft v. As t r ue, 5 39 F
. 3d 66 8, 6 77

- 78 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( l i m i ting hy po th eti ca lt o s i m pl e, uns k i l l ed wor kdo es no t ac co unt f orcl ai m ant’ s difficul ty w i th m em or y, co ncentr ati on, o r m oo d sw in gs ); R a m irez , 37 2 F
. 3d at 554 ( hypo th etic al re str i cti on t o sim p le one ortwo- ste p task s doe s no t ac co untf o r l i m itati o ns o fc o nc en tr at i o n) ; Kas ars ky, 33 5 F. 3d at 544 ( const ructi n g h yp othe ti calquesti on about a perso n w i th bo rder l i ne i ntel l i gence does notacc ou n t fo r d efi cienc ies in con cen tration); S m ith v . Ha lter, 307 F. 3d 377, 38 0 ( 6th Ci r . 2 00 1) ( r es tr i ct i nghy po th et i ca lt o j o bs wi th

o utquo t a s , r a the r tha n t o s i mpl e t a s k s , a de qu a t e l y a ddress es i m p air m ent in conce ntra ti on)
. In f act, the So ci al Se curi ty A dm i ni str ati on i tse l fr ej ects that posi ti on. SS R 85- 15
. The Com m i ss i o ne r do es no t ac k no wl edg e th es e au th o r i ti es o r c i te a ny c o nt r ar y pr ec ede nt, no r do es he10 N o. 08

- 1739

ex pl ain why the hy po th et i ca lf ai l ed t o i nc l ude r es tr i ct i o ns on, f ore x am p le, the abi l i ty to und er sta nd i nstr ucti ons or re sp on d to w or k p re ss u re s. See 2 0 C
. F
. R
. § 4 0 4
. 1 5 4 5 ( c )
. As a c o ns e qu e nc e , the v o c a t i o na le xp e r tdi d n o ta ddres s these l i m i tati ons w hen he s ugges ted vo cati ons such as p u n c h -b oa rd as se m b ler , l au n d ry w or ke r, or s or t e r . In l i ght o fthi s clea r l i ne o fpre cedent, bo th the A LJ’ s hypotheti caland the Com m i ssi one r’s subse quent defense of th at h y p o t h et ica l lac k s u b st an tia l j u st ifica tio n . Young, 36 2 F .3d at10 04 -05 ; Ste el e, 29 0 F
. 3d at 942.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON The denia lof fees w as thus an abuse o fdi scr eti on. In her E A JA pet iti on, Stew art requ ested $6,914. 07 in attorn ey’s fee s an d $ 35 0 i n c o st s, a nd the magi st r at e j udg e f o und tho s e c a l c ul a t i ons re aso nabl e. A ccor dingl y, we R EV ERSE the de ni a lo fa t t o r ne y ’ s fe e s a nd R EMA ND with instr ucti ons to aw ar d the am ount r equeste d. W e a l so aw ar d app el l ate att or ney’ s fees to St ew ar t. St ew ar t’ s co unselshal lsubm i t a st at em en t o f at to rn ey ’s fe es inc u rre d on a p p ea l w ith in f ourt een days

.

4- 2- 09