Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NATALIE J. STEPHENS v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-05-2574

* --------------------------------------------------------------JULIA LITZ V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-2026

* --------------------------------------------------------------BELINDA JACKSON V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-1598

* --------------------------------------------------------------TORI ADDISION V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-2601

1

MARSHA WOODLAND V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY

* * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-2506

* --------------------------------------------------------------KIM DOUGLAS V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-2507

* --------------------------------------------------------------HENRY ALLISON V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-2812

* --------------------------------------------------------------DAVID ANDERSON V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-1311

* --------------------------------------------------------------KARL SHARP V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-2903

2

ELAINE OBEE JOHNSON V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY

* * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-1360

* --------------------------------------------------------------PAUL WARD V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-2476

* --------------------------------------------------------------SUZANNE RUBEN-POPKIN V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-2608

* --------------------------------------------------------------CHRISTINE A. LATHAM V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-2477

* --------------------------------------------------------------WILLIAM L. UNDERWOOD, JR. V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-378

3

PHILLIP J. BRAXTON V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY

* * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-2603

* --------------------------------------------------------------MARIA CORDOVA V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-2475

* --------------------------------------------------------------KIMBERLY CARTER V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-2509

* --------------------------------------------------------------CHERYL BIRDOW V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-2815

* --------------------------------------------------------------HOPE PARKER V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-07-518

4

CRYSTAL LUNDY V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY

* * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-2948

* --------------------------------------------------------------DOROTHY MORALES V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-3120

* --------------------------------------------------------------DEBORAH LAQUAY V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-3445

* --------------------------------------------------------------DION GRAY V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-07-396

* --------------------------------------------------------------LLEWELLYN PRATT V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-07-298

5

EGIDIA RAMINHOS V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY

* * * CIVIL NO. SKG-07-394

* --------------------------------------------------------------JOANNE HALL V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-2960

* --------------------------------------------------------------VIRGIL EVANS V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-3051

* --------------------------------------------------------------MAURICIO ZELAYA V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-07-1236

* --------------------------------------------------------------ZAWDY BUKRY V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-07-561

6

RAWN RUSSELL V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY

* * * CIVIL NO. SKG-07-900

* --------------------------------------------------------------CHRISTINA WATTS V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-07-299

* --------------------------------------------------------------DONNA WRIGHT o/b/o BRITTANY WRIGHT V. * MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-1163 * *

--------------------------------------------------------------VINCENT MILES V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-06-2949

* --------------------------------------------------------------JOHN GAGEL V. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY * * * * CIVIL NO. SKG-07-590

7

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court are thirty four Petitions for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act in Social Security Appeals (hereinafter the "EAJA").1 The first of these

petitions was filed in the summer of 2007, and others were filed throughout the year. All request an award of attorney's fees payable to the plaintiff's counsel. (See, e.g., Paper No. 31.) The government filed individual responses stating that it does not contest the amount of fees requested, but that the fees should be payable to the plaintiff, not her attorney. (See, e.g., Paper No. 34.) The plaintiffs filed reply briefs requesting additional attorney's fees for preparing the reply brief. (See, e.g., Paper No. 35.) The government has opposed the award of any

fees for the litigation of this issue of proper payee, however. A hearing was held on the matter in all thirty four cases on November 14, 2007. For the reasons set forth below, this Court holds that an award of attorney's fees under the EAJA is payable to the plaintiff's attorney and further that the plaintiff's attorney is

Although this opinion governs all the cases noted above, citations within are to the papers in the lead case, Stephens v. Astrue, CIVIL NO. SKG-05-2574. The party submissions in all these cases, however, are substantially the same . Individual orders will be issued to address the amount of fees sought in each case. In 10 cases, the government stipulated to the payment of fees to counsel without waiving its legal position. The Court shall approve those stipulations.

1

8

entitled to additional fees for litigating this issue.

Thus,

this Court GRANTS each plaintiff's Petition for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, with fees and costs payable directly to counsel. Discussion The issue before the Court is whether an award of attorney's fees under the EAJA is payable to the plaintiff or his attorney. This question is distinct from whether the attorney has the right to seek fees, contrary to the party's wishes or indeed his waiver of fees. In deciding this question, the Court has reviewed the

subject statute in its entirety, and has considered principles of statutory construction and the body of case law interpreting the EAJA and other fee shifting statutes, to aid in its interpretation of the statute here. Having done so, the Court

rules that the attorney, not the plaintiff, is entitled to the award of any fees sought. While courts are divided on this exact

question under the EAJA, a historical survey and close analysis of the case law on all fee shifting statutes demonstrates a judicial appreciation that fees belong to the attorney, not the client. An interpretation of the statute that would entitle the

prevailing party to the receipt of the fee award (as opposed to counsel) would frustrate this statute's remedial purpose and accord the plaintiff an unintended windfall, contrary to legislative intent and long term administrative practice. This

9

judge joins many others in the "common sense policy of protecting the statutory purposes of the fee award." See FDL Technologies,

Inc. v. United States, 967 F.2d 1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Newman, J., dissenting). Analysis of the Plain Language of the Statute The first step in interpreting a statute is to determine whether its language indicates a clear and unambiguous meaning. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340 (1997); 2A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction

Download Stephens, et al. v. Astrue.pdf

Maryland Law