Allen v. Bowen, 86-1705
| Decision Date | 25 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1705,86-1705 |
| Citation | 821 F.2d 963 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 17,529 Charles G. ALLEN, Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Eric J. Fischer (argued), Community Legal Services, Inc., Law Center North Central, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward S.G. Dennis, Jr., U.S. Atty., William Kanter, Jay S. Bybee (argued), Attys., Appellate Staff, Civil Div., Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before GIBBONS, Chief Judge, MANSMANN, Circuit Judge and McCUNE, District Judge. *
Community Legal Services, Inc. of Philadelphia (Community Legal Services), appeals on behalf of its client, Charles Allen, from an order awarding attorneys fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d) (Supp. III (1985)) (EAJA). Allen, an applicant for disability benefits under the Social Security Act, was successful in obtaining judicial review, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g) (1982), of the initial agency denial of such benefits, and after a remand from the district court, ultimately received an award. Allen requested attorneys fees, and the district court, finding that the Secretary's position had not been substantially justified, awarded $75.00 an hour for 13.5 hours of legal services. The court refused, however, to adjust the $75.00 an hour rate upward to take into account inflation since that statutory rate was fixed in 1981. The court held that Congressional reenactment of the EAJA in August 1985 required that inflation prior to that date must be disregarded. Alternatively, the court concluded that Allen failed to justify the cost of living adjustment. We will reverse.
Although the amount involved in this appeal is small, the issue of statutory interpretation is of considerable significance to legal services organizations which represent claimants against federal agencies. Section 2412(d)(1)(A) of the EAJA provides for a mandatory award of counsel fees to qualified prevailing parties in certain civil actions against the United States. Section 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii) provides that "attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $75 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living ... justifies a higher fee." We have noted that "the cost of living adjustment provision seems designed to provide a disincentive to agencies to prolong the litigation process." Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 703 F.2d 700, 713 (3d Cir.1983).
Originally enacted in 1980, the Equal Access to Justice Act became effective on October 1, 1981. The Act provided, however,
Effective October 1, 1984, subsection (d) of section 2412, as added by subsection (a) of this section, is repealed, except that the provisions of that subsection shall continue to apply through final disposition of any action commenced before the date of repeal.
Pub.L. 96-481 Sec. 204(c), 94 Stat. 2329. The legislative history of Pub.L. 96-481 describes this "is repealed" language as a "sunset provision, repealing subsection (d) of section 2412 of title 28 at the end of three years...." H.R.Rep. No. 1418, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 19, reprinted in 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4953, 4984, 4998. Clearly, however, there was no sunset with respect to actions commenced prior to October 1, 1984.
Allen's section 405(g) petition for review was filed on October 26, 1983, and the remand to the agency occurred on January 26, 1984. Thus if section 204(c) of Pub.L. 96-481 were to still govern, Allen would be entitled not only to a fee award, but to the cost of living adjustment authorized by section 204(a) of that statute.
Before the October 21, 1984 sunset date, Congress considered making the Equal Access to Justice Act permanent. On August 5, 1985 it enacted Pub.L. 99-80, which made the Act permanent, and included a number of clarifying amendments. Equal Access to Justice Act, Extension and Amendment, Pub.L. No. 99-80, 90 Stat. 183 (Aug. 5, 1985), codified at 5 U.S.C. Sec. 504 and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412. The language chosen in making the Act permanent is found in sections 6 and 7:
SEC. 6. TREATMENT OF EXPIRED PROVISIONS OF LAW.
(a) Revival of Certain Expired Provisions. Section 504 of title 5, United States Code, and the item relating to that section in the table of sections of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, and subsection (d) of section 2412 of title 28, United States Code, shall be effective on or after the date of the enactment of this Act as if they had not been repealed by sections 203(c) and 204(c) of the Equal Access to Justice Act.
(b) Repeals.--
(1) Section 203(c) of the Equal Access to Justice Act is hereby repealed.
(2) Section 204(c) of the Equal Access to Justice Act is hereby repealed.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this section, the amendments made by this Act shall apply to cases pending on or commenced on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Applicability of Amendments to Certain Prior Cases.--The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any case commenced on or after October 1, 1984, and finally disposed of before the date of the enactment of this Act, except that in any such case, the 30-day period referred to in section 504(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code, or section 2412(d)(1)(B) of title 28, United States Code, as the case may be, shall be deemed to commence on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Pub.L. No. 99-80, Secs. 6, 7, 90 Stat. 186.
The government's position, which the district court apparently accepted, is that the quoted sections, separately or together, had the effect of making the cost of living adjustment provision of Pub.L. 96-481 inapplicable even to actions pending prior to October 1, 1984. As best we understand it, the government's interpretation of Congressional intention is as follows:
(1) Section 6(a) of Pub.L. 99-80 "reenacted" 5 U.S.C. Sec. 504 and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d), and thus made the $75 per hour rate the base rate for August, 1985.
(2) Section 6(b) of Pub.L. 99-80 "repealed" the provision carrying forward the original Act for pending cases; and
(3) Section 7(a) of Pub.L. 99-80 made the amended Act applicable to pending cases, and thus made the cost of living adjustment clause operative from August 5, 1985 forward.
Thus, according to the government, the 99th Congress intended to take back, for pending cases, one of the benefits, a cost of living adjustment, which the 96th Congress had plainly conferred in section 204(c).
Community Legal Services, on the other hand, contends that the 99th Congress intended to make the EAJA permanent for both pending and new cases as if the "sunset provision" in section 204(c) had never taken effect. The language on which the government relies, it urges, is merely the result of timing difficulties Congress encountered in enacting the legislation.
The progenitor of Pub.L. 99-80 was H.R. 5479, introduced by Congressman Kastenmeier. In doing so, he noted that "[t]he primary purpose of H.R. 5479 is to extend and make permanent those provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act which will expire on October 1, 1984." 130 Cong.Rec. H 9298 (daily ed. Sept. 11, 1984) (statement of Cong. Kastenmeier). After a number of amendments, H.R. 5479 was passed unanimously in both Chambers on October 11, 1984, ten days after the October 1, 1984 expiration date in sections 203(c) and 204(c) of the 1980 law. Thus, technically the 1980 law expired, except for pending cases. It was not immediately revived, because the President vetoed H.R. 5479 on November 8, 1984. See H.R.Rep. 120, 99th Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in 1985 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 132, 134.
While the Equal Access to Justice Act was, by virtue of sections 203(c) and 204(c) of Pub.L. 96-481, still in effect for cases pending on October 1, 1984, it had otherwise expired. On June 24, 1985 Congressman Kastenmeier introduced H.R. 2378, a revised version of the bill the President had vetoed. Since, except for cases pending on October 1, 1984, the Act had technically expired, it was necessary to revive it, and then to modify it. 1 Section 6 of H.R. 2378 provided:
(a) Revival of Certain Expired Provisions.--Section 504 of Title 5, United States Code, and the item relating to that section in the table of sections of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, and subsection (d) of section 2412 of title 28, United States Code, shall be effective on or after the date of the enactment of this Act as if they had not been repealed by sections 203(c) and 204(c) of the Equal Access to Justice Act.
(b) Repeals.--
(1) Section 203(c) of the Equal Access to Justice Act is hereby repealed.
(2) Section 204(c) of the Equal Access to Justice Act is hereby repealed.
131 Cong.Rec. H4761 (daily ed. June 24, 1985). This language, on which the government relies, was adopted in the final version of the Pub.L. 99-80. Mr. Kastenmeier noted that this bill would apply to any case pending on or after October 1, 1984. See 131 Cong.Rec. H4762 (daily ed. June 24, 1985) (statement by Cong. Kastenmeier).
Both the House and Senate approved this version of the bill. Senator Domenici noted:
[T]his bill contains a provision extending the protection to cases pending at the date of its enactment and covering cases filed on or after October 1, 1984 and disposed of before the date of its enactment. These provisions are essential to ensure that no party is denied the protection of the act solely because of the failure of the President to approve the bill last year. It is our intent that the protection afforded by the Equal Access to Justice Act be deemed continuous from the date of its first enactment.
131 Cong.Rec. S9997 (daily ed. July 24, 1985) (statement by Senator Domenici) (emphasis added).
This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dabone v. Thornburgh
...rate, adjusted appropriately, by the number of hours expended — the lodestar technique familiar in § 1988 litigation. Allen v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 963 (3d Cir.1987); see also, e.g., Ramon-Sepulveda v. INS, 863 F.2d 1458, 1462-64 (9th Cir.1988). As required by the statute, the hours claimed are ......
-
Dairy Maid Dairy, Inc. v. US
...to the Consumer Price Index — Urban ("CPI-U"). See, e.g., Ramon-Sepulveda v. I.N.S., 863 F.2d 1458, 1463 (9th Cir.1988); Allen v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 963, 967 (3d Cir.1987). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, while not expressly endorsing the CPI-U, has suggested recentl......
-
Jones v. Astrue, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-4194
...see Dewalt v. Sullivan, 963 F.2d 27, 29 (3d Cir. 1992); Garcia v. Schweiker, 829 F.2d 396, 401 (3d Cir. 1987); Allen v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 963, 967-68 (3d Cir. 1987); Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. EPA., 703 F.2d 700, 713 (3d Cir. 1983), we determine that Jones is entitled to his requ......
-
Jean v. Nelson
...rendered prior to 1985. See Trichilo v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 823 F.2d 702, 706-07 (2d Cir.1987); Allen v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 963, 967 (3d Cir.1987); Sierra Club v. Secretary of the Army, 820 F.2d 513, 520-23 (1st Cir.1987); Hirschey v. FERC, 777 F.2d 1, 5 2. Special Factors Th......
-
Standards of Review and Federal Court Remedies
...513, 521 (1st Cir. 1987); Trichilo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services , 823 F.2d 702, 704-07 (2d Cir. 1987); Allen v. Otis Bowen , 821 F.2d 963 (3d Cir. 1987); Ramon-Sepulveda v. INS , 863 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1988); and U.S. v. A Leasehold Interest in Property , 789 F.Supp. 1385, 139......
-
Standards of Review and Federal Court Remedies
...513, 521 (1st Cir. 1987); Trichilo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services , 823 F.2d 702, 704-07 (2d Cir. 1987); Allen v. Otis Bowen , 821 F.2d 963 (3d Cir. 1987); Ramon-Sepulveda v. INS , 863 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1988); and U.S. v. A Leasehold Interest in Property , 789 F.Supp. 1385, 139......
-
9. Equal Access to Justice Act
...Cir. 1991); Johnson v. Sullivan , 919 F.2d 503 (8th Cir. 1990); Trichilo v. Secretary, HHS , 823 F.2d 702 (2d Cir. 1987); Allen v. Bowen , 821 F.2d 963 (3d Cir. 1987); Sierra Club v. Secretary of the Army , 820 F.2d 513 (1st Cir. 1987); Hirschey v. FERC , 777 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Greeni......
-
Sample EAJA Brief addressing Mathews-Sheets
...513, 521 (1st Cir. 1987); Trichilo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 823 F.2d 702, 704-07 (2d Cir. 1987); Allen v. Otis Bowen, 821 F.2d 963 (3d Cir. 1987); Ramon-Sepulveda v. INS, 863 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1988); and U.S. v. A Leasehold Interest in Property, 789 F.Supp. 1385, 1394 (E......