Opinion ID: 776745
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fees and Costs Incurred During Court-Ordered Remand

Text: 41 In contrast to pre-litigation costs, we see no reason that a party may not recover costs incurred during an administrative remand ordered by a court. As demonstrated above, the text and legislative history indicate that once a court of law has assumed jurisdiction over a suit, all costs incurred may be shifted by a court to one party. The fact that a court orders additional fact finding or proceedings to occur at the administrative level does not alter the fact that those proceedings are part of the action as defined by ERISA. Where the administrative proceedings are ordered by the district court and where that court retains jurisdiction over the action during the pendency of the administrative proceedings, we hold that ERISA authorizes the award of associated costs. 42 While we are not aware of any other court to adjudicate the precise issue of fees incurred during an administrative remand in the ERISA context, cases interpreting other fee-shifting statutes support our conclusions. For example, in Hudson, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) authorized a court to award fees incurred during an administrative remand. 490 U.S. at 892, 109 S.Ct. 2248. As described by the Court itself,  Hudson thus stands for the proposition that in those cases where the district court retains jurisdiction of the civil action and contemplates entering a final judgment following the completion of administrative proceedings, a claimant may collect EAJA fees for work done at the administrative level. Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 97, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991). Similarly, in Delaware Valley, the Court affirmed the award of fees and costs that were incurred during administrative proceedings conducted pursuant to a court-approved settlement plan. 478 U.S. at 561, 106 S.Ct. 3088; see also Johnson v. United States, 554 F.2d 632, 633 (4th Cir.1977) (We conclude that the district court properly took into consideration the attorney's services in the agency proceeding. In a sense, this remanded administrative proceeding was ancillary to [the plaintiff's] initial action in the district court.). 43 Accordingly, we hold that the District Court appropriately exercised its discretion to award Peterson fees and costs incurred while engaged in the administrative proceedings ordered by the District Court.