Costa v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Good Law
690 F.3d 1132·2012 WL 3631255·2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17946
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 24, 201211-35245California2,227 words

Opinion

Opinion

The Social Security Administration denied Shane Costa’s application for social security disability benefits. Costa sought review of that decision in the Oregon district court. The federal magistrate judge who presided over Costa’s action determined that the agency’s decision improperly disregarded the opinions of an examining psychologist and remanded Costa’s case to the agency. Costa sought reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d). The magistrate judge granted the request in part but determined that the 60.5 hours Costa’s attorneys spent working on the case were excessive. Applying what amounts to an informal rule limiting fee awards in social security cases, he reduced the number of hours compensated by nearly one-third, to 41.1 hours. We hold that it is improper for district courts to apply a de facto cap on the number of hours for which attorneys may be compensated under the EAJA in a “routine” case challenging the denial of social security benefits. Rather individualized consideration must be given to each case.

I

Shane Costa applied for disability benefits alleging that he suffered from bi-polar disorder,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.