TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sanchez v. Heckler

Joseph J. SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant

Sanchez v. Heckler, 603 F. Supp. 280 (D. Colo. 1985)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, D. Colorado · Federal District Courts
Decided
February 15, 1985
Docket
No. 83-K-2014
Judges
Kane
Citations
603 F. Supp. 2801985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22526

Opinion — Kane

ORDER AWARDING FEES KANE, District Judge.

Joseph Sanchez is a member of the class seeking payment of social security disability benefits through this action. Although I remanded Mr. Sanchez’s case for further administrative action, plaintiff won interim benefits as a direct result of this law suit and ultimately, via the administrative process and also as a direct result of this lawsuit, the relief to which he was entitled — social security disability benefits. As contemplated by the Equal Access to *281 Justice Act, Mr. Sanchez has prevailed in this lawsuit.

Although the defendant objects to an award of fees in this case, the litigation position of the government was not substantially justified.

See McGill v. Secretary of H.H.S., 712 F.2d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 1983). Both the relief obtained at the hearing on February 29, 1984 in the nature of interim benefits and the final determination on the merits by the defendant agency after remand were directly obtained as a result of the civil action.

Although a party may not be entitled to fees on an order of remand, if the subsequent agency action is favorable, the party will thereafter be entitled to fees under the EAJA.

Trujillo v. Heckler, 582 F.Supp. 701, 709 (D.Colo.1984). It is important to note that I was effectively forced to remand the case because of defendant’s failure to procure or develop the administrative record below in a timely manner. I was, therefore, prevented from reversing and awarding benefits — as I would certainly have done. A similar situation resulted in an award of fees in Gross v. Schweiker, 563 F.Supp. 260 (N.D.Ind.1983).

Mr. Sanchez has requested compensation for attorney fees at the rate of $88.50 an hour. Although the EAJA sets a maximum hourly fee rate of $75.00 an hour, it provides for enhanced fees if, inter alia, a showing of inflation is made which justifies a higher fee. The affidavit of Mr. Charles Lief, Esq., shows an increase in the Denver average Consumer Price Index of 18% from the time the EAJA was enacted through December, 1984. A corresponding 18% increase in the $75.00 EAJA amount comes to $88.50 an hour. The affidavit and time sheets of the attorney who handled the matter, Mr. Brian Lawlor, Esq., show that 41 hours were reasonably expended in the prosecution of this case. Thus, plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees in the amount of $3,628.50. Plaintiff is also entitled to attorney fees incurred in the prosecution of the application for fees in an amount as may be finally itemized.

I encourage the parties to stipulate to this latter amount. If the parties are unable to stipulate as to this latter fee amount as well as plaintiff’s costs, I will decide the issue upon plaintiff’s submission of proper filings within fifteen days after the date of this order.

IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Sanchez’s motion for fees is granted and he is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $3,628.50. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff will be allowed attorney fees incurred in the prosecution of the application for fees in an amount to be determined. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff is awarded costs in an amount to be determined.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1986: 11987: 11989: 219862026peak 1989 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bunn v. Bowen637 F. Supp. 464 (E.D.N.C. 1986)
  2. Headlee v. Bowen869 F.2d 548 (10th Cir. 1989)
  3. Marquez v. Bowen682 F. Supp. 48 (S.D. Fla. 1987)
  4. Headlee v. Bowen869 F.2d 548 (10th Cir. 1989)

Most recent

  1. Headlee v. Bowen869 F.2d 548 (10th Cir. 1989)
  2. Headlee v. Bowen869 F.2d 548 (10th Cir. 1989)
  3. Marquez v. Bowen682 F. Supp. 48 (S.D. Fla. 1987)
  4. Bunn v. Bowen637 F. Supp. 464 (E.D.N.C. 1986)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Benerethia McGill v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 712 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1983) 109
Gross v. Schweiker, 563 F. Supp. 260 (N.D. Ind. 1983) 22
Trujillo v. Heckler, 582 F. Supp. 701 (D. Colo. 1984) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list