Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Thom T. applied for Supplemental Security Income in 2012, alleging disability onset in December 2011. An ALJ denied the application at step two of the sequential evaluation, finding no severe impairment. In Tran I (2022), the district court found the ALJ erred by stopping at step two without substantial evidence and by failing to adequately develop the record or properly consider treating physician opinions. The court remanded for further proceedings but declined to award benefits directly, finding the record insufficiently developed for a credit-as-true award.
On remand, a second ALJ again denied the application. The Commissioner moved to remand for further proceedings, conceding the ALJ failed to comply with the Tran I order. Plaintiff opposed and sought either merits briefing or remand for an award of benefits, arguing the record was fully developed. The court again remanded for further proceedings, consistent with the Commissioner's position, finding the record still not fully developed—citing missing records from treating physicians Dr. Highum and Dr. Grisolia and Plaintiff's failure to attend a consultative examination. Plaintiff then moved for EAJA fees totaling $38,028.94, based on 125.35 hours at $294.62/hour (statutory rate plus $50 Vietnamese fluency enhancement) plus $1,098.32 in costs.
The Court’s Holding
The court found Plaintiff eligible for EAJA fees as a prevailing party who obtained a remand, with net worth below $2 million and a timely, itemized application. The Government did not argue its position was substantially justified. The court rejected the Government's 'special circumstances' argument for a 75% reduction, treating it instead as a reasonableness issue. The court applied cost-of-living adjusted rates of $251.84 (2024) and $258.46 (2025), plus a $50/hour special factor enhancement for Vietnamese fluency—finding this distinctive skill necessary and unavailable at the statutory rate—but denied enhancement for Social Security expertise as not a 'special factor' under Pierce v. Underwood.
The court reduced the fee award by approximately 66%, denying all fees incurred after the Commissioner's November 2024 motion to remand. Plaintiff's pursuit of an immediate award of benefits was unreasonable given Tran I's explicit finding that the record was not fully developed and that further proceedings were needed. The second ALJ repeated the same errors, and Plaintiff conceded the record remained undeveloped. Fees for 125.35 hours were reduced to $9,357.04 for pre-remand-offer work only. Fees-on-fees (32.35 hours, $9,978.68) were reduced by the same 66% to $3,392.75. Costs were awarded only for the $405 filing fee; $93.32 in mailing costs (incurred post-remand-offer) and $600 in paralegal services (insufficiently documented) were denied. The court directed payment to counsel subject to Treasury offset and Government waiver of Anti-Assignment Act requirements.
Key Takeaways
- A prevailing party in a Social Security case who obtains a remand is eligible for EAJA fees even if benefits are not ultimately awarded.
- Special factor enhancements under EAJA require distinctive knowledge or skills (e.g., foreign language fluency) that are necessary for the litigation and unavailable at the statutory rate; expertise in Social Security law alone does not qualify.
- Courts will reduce EAJA fees when a plaintiff unreasonably rejects a government remand offer and pursues greater relief (e.g., immediate award of benefits) without a reasonable basis, particularly when prior rulings foreclose that relief.
- Fees-on-fees are recoverable but must be reduced proportionally to the reduction in merits fees when the fee litigation was necessitated by the plaintiff's own unreasonable litigation strategy.
- Paralegal costs require adequate documentation of services performed, hourly rates, and distinction from clerical tasks; photocopied checks and vague descriptions are insufficient.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that EAJA fee awards are not automatic upon prevailing but require careful reasonableness analysis tied to results obtained. The court's refusal to reward litigation that prolongs proceedings after a reasonable remand offer aligns with Hensley's directive to consider the relationship between fees and results. The ruling also clarifies that foreign language proficiency can justify a special factor enhancement when the client cannot communicate effectively in English and no other counsel is available at the statutory rate, while confirming that practice-area specialization in Social Security law does not meet the Pierce standard. The proportional reduction of fees-on-fees based on merits-fee reductions provides a clear methodology for future cases.