Brissette v. Heckler, 85-1903
| Citation | 784 F.2d 864 |
| Decision Date | 25 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1903,85-1903 |
| Parties | , Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 16,659 Earl BRISSETTE, Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
John W. Reid, II, Fredericktown, Mo., for appellant.
Joseph B. Moore, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.
John W. Reid II is the present attorney for Earl W. Brissette, a claimant for Social Security Disability Benefits. Through Brissette, attorney Reid appeals two orders of the district court: one, in which the district court refused to award attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d)(1)(A) (); and the other, in which the district court denied the fee claim for twenty-five percent of Brissette's past due benefits based on a contingent fee contract and the maximum percentage of past due benefits available under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 406(b)(1) (1982). The district court denied fees under the EAJA after determining that the government's position in this litigation had been substantially justified. After noting that the attorney had already received $900.00 from the Social Security Administration for representing Brissette in the administrative phase of the case, the district court allowed a fee of $60.00 per hour for the hours spent preparing for the judicial phase of the case but denied the fee request based on the contingent fee contract. This appeal followed. We affirm on the EAJA issue without further discussion for the reasons given by the district court in its order of June 25, 1985, 613 F.Supp. 722, 1 but reverse and remand on the fee adjudication for attorney Reid.
Brissette lost disability benefits awarded in 1974 through an administrative determination in 1981. Seeking to have his benefits restored, Brissette obtained counsel from the Meramec Area Legal Aid Corporation. Brissette's case proceeded administratively and on appeal to the district court without success. After the unsuccessful appeal to the district court, the legal aid corporation declined to expend further time or money on the case. Brissette retained his present attorney, J.W. Reid II, and agreed to pay Reid twenty-five percent of the past due benefits recovered under a contingent fee arrangement. Attorney Reid briefed and argued the appeal in the Eighth Circuit, and obtained a remand of the case to the Secretary. Brissette v. Heckler, 730 F.2d 548 (8th Cir.1984). Thereafter, attorney Reid represented Brissette in an abbreviated hearing before an ALJ of the Social Security Administration. The ALJ recommended that Brissette continue to receive disability benefits. Subsequently, the Social Security Administration agreed and awarded benefits to Brissette, including past due benefits.
The Social Security Administration retained twenty-five percent of the past due benefits ($9,699.12) owed to Brissette to be held for payment of attorney's fees. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 406(b)(1). Attorney Reid then petitioned the Social Security Administration for attorney's fees based on his contingent fee contract. The Social Security Administration authorized a fee award of $900.00 covering only the cost of representation in the administrative hearing. Reid then petitioned the district court for attorney's fees in the amount of the Social Security Act's statutory maximum of twenty-five percent of past due benefits based on the contingent fee contract. Reid also filed a motion for attorney's fees under the EAJA. As previously noted, the district court denied the request for attorney's fees under the EAJA because it found that the Social Security Administration's position had a reasonable basis in law and fact. Cornella v. Schweiker, 728 F.2d 978, 981-82 (8th Cir.1984). In addition, the district court disallowed the twenty-five percent contingent fee claim and awarded a fee based on a $60.00 per hour rate for the 46.25 hours spent in preparation of the judicial phase of the case as a "reasonable hourly rate * * * in light of the complexity of the case." Under the circumstances of this case, we believe the district court improperly evaluated Reid's services.
We do not read the district court's opinion as taking into account any contingency factor in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sumler v. Bowen
...McKittrick with approval and followed the rationale of that case in Fenix v. Finch, 436 F.2d 831 (8th Cir.1971), and in Brissette v. Heckler, 784 F.2d 864 (8th Cir.1986). Fenix and Brissette were most recently followed in the Eighth Circuit in Rohrich v. Bowen, 796 F.2d 1030 (8th Cir.1986).......
-
Cotter v. Bowen
...between the plaintiff and his attorney in this case, see, e.g., Rohrich v. Bowen, 796 F.2d 1030, 1031 (8th Cir.1986); Brissette v. Heckler, 784 F.2d 864, 866 (8th Cir.1986), plaintiff's counsel nonetheless argues that in view of the results achieved, the delay in receiving payment of fees, ......
-
Holmberg v. Bowen, Civ. No. 87-5010.
...First, a contingent fee contract does not bind a district court in its determination of an attorney fee award. Brissette v. Heckler, 784 F.2d 864, 866 (8th Cir.1986) adopting MacDonald v. Weinberger, 512 F.2d 144, 146-47 (9th Cir.1975); McKittrick v. Gardner, 378 F.2d 872 (4th Cir.1967). Se......
-
Barriger v. Bowen, 86-CV-602.
...to award the smaller amount to the client. See Pub.L. No. 99-80, 99 Stat. 183, 186 § 3;2 Weakley, supra, at 580; Brissette v. Heckler, 784 F.2d 864 (8th Cir. 1986); Guthrie v. Schweiker, 718 F.2d 104, 108, n. 11 (4th The court notes further that the plaintiff's attorney has apparently not m......