# Amicus Curiae Brief — Shalala v. Schaefer

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385013_0342%3A09

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1993
- **Citation:** 509 U.S. 292

## Text

Suprame Court, UD
FILED

FE3 18 1993

tat te to

No. 92-311

In The

Supreme Court of the United

October Term, 1992
SJ
LOUIS W. SULLIVAN, SECRETARY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Petitioner,

j* THE CLERK

V.

RICHARD H. SCHAEFER,
Respondent.

e

On Writ Of Certiorari To The
United States Court Of Appeals
For The Eighth Circuit
¢

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE LEGAL SERVICES OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., AND NATIONAL
SENIOR CITIZENS LAW CENTER
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
¢

Gary F. SmitH

(Counsel of Record)

Legal Services of Northern
California, Inc.

619 North Street

Woodland, California 95695

(916) 662-1065

Gitt DeFrorp
National Senior Citizens

Law Center
1052 W. 6th Street, Suite 700
Los Angeles, California 90017
(213) 482-3550

Attcrneys for Amici Curiae

Legal Services of Northern
California, Inc.

National Senior Citizens
Law Center

February 17, 1993

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO, bo} 225-6964
OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-283

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE LEGAL SERVICES OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC. AND
NATIONAL SENIOR CITIZENS LAW CENTER IN
SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

INTERESTS OF AMICI
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT:

I. RESPONDENT’S APPLICATION FOR ATTOR-
NEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO
JUSTICE ACT WAS TIMELY FILED

A.

The EAJA filing period may only be trig-
gered by a district court judgment entered
after the claimant has won entitlement to
benefits

The Court’s decisions in Finkelstein and
Melkonyan do not require abandonment of
the procedure approved in Hudson

The Secretary’s proposed EAJA application
procedure in fourth sentence remand cases is
contrary to the statutory prescription for the
application, and will needlessly waste vast
resources of disability claimants and the
courts

EVEN IF THE SECRETARY’S INTERPRETATION
OF THE APPROPRIATE PERIOD FOR EAJA
APPLICATIONS IN CASES INVOLVING
FOURTH SENTENCE REMANDS IS CORRECT,
THE COURT’S HOLDING IN HUDSON CAN-
NOT BE LIMITED TO SIXTH SENTENCE
DE 6b es nscecrceees ieshababndaoeedaeesk

CONCLUSION

15

22

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page
CASES
Audette v. Sec’y of HHS, 776 F.Supp. 84 (D.R.1.
Pere fer rrr rr rr ere rr errr TT re 21
Bowen v. Galbreath, 485 U.S. 74 (1988)........ 20, 28, 29

Brown v. Sec’y of HHS, 747 F.2d 878 (3d Cir. 1984) ....14
Butts v. Bowen, 775 F.Supp. 1167 (N.D.IIl. 1991),

reaff'd, 778 F.Supp. 453 (N.D.II. 1991)............. 25
Carrillo v. Bowen, 636 F.Supp. 99 (D.Ariz. 1985)...... 26
Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 446 U.S. 154 (1990)........ 28
Defrancesco v. Sullivan, 803 F.Supp. 1132 (N.D.IIL

ee ne eae a oe ee 25, 28
Desrouchers v. Heckler, 701 F.Supp. 753 (D.Nev

RRR Ate at phere TeMClee ry Cc 24
Dow v. Sullivan, 774 F.Supp. 46 (D.Me. 1991)........ 21
Fergason v. Sullivan, 771 F.Supp. 1008 (W.D.Mo.

CRE as Aarne 16
Frizzell v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 254 (5th Cir. 1991)...... 26

Gagnon v. Sullivan, 792 F.Supp. 873 (D.Me. 1991) .... 21
Hafner v. Sullivan, 972 F.2d 249 (8th Cir. 1992).6, 17, 19
Hawkins v. Sullivan, 608 F.Supp. 1201 (D.Kan. 1985) ... . 25
Key v. Sullivan, 925 F.2d 1056 (7th Cir. 1991)........ 26

Labrie v. Sec’y of HHS, 976 F.2d 779 (1st Cir. 1992)
neces ucenyenduenniensssesenens 6, 17, 20, 22

Lindner v. Sullivan, 799 F.Supp. 888 (N.D.IIl. 1992) .... 25
Lopez v. Sullivan, 780 F.Supp. 496 (N.D.IIl. 1992)..... 21

in
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Melkonyan v. Sulltvan, 111 S Ct. 2157 (1991)... ... passim
Mills v. Sultvan, 782 F.Supp. 1347 (W.D.Mo. 1992) .... 21

Misciagno v. Sec’y of HHS, 786 F.Supp. 1120
(B-GAG.V. COUR). oc cccsccscedscsecdauueeeenkeeeenen 25

Myers v. Sullivan, 916 F.2d 659 (11th Cir 1991)... . 30
Parsons v. Sullivan, 140 FR.D. 352 (S.D.Ohio 1992) 19, 21
Phayboun v. Sullivan, No. S-909-225 EJG/PAN

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 1992) (unpublished). .......... 6, 7
Pierce v. Heckler, 620 FSupp. 320 (D.Ariz. 1985) .. 26
Prasad v. Sullivan, No. C-90-1435 SC (N.D Cal Nov

21, 1991) (unpublished)... a | 17
Reeves v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 383 (11th Cir. 1988), reh'g

denied, 860 F.2d 1009 (11th Cir 1988)... a
Rivera-Sanchez v. Sec’y of HHS, 786 —— 147

(DD. Funetm Gee Fee sc coceccunsvencncaaer ra 24
Rodriguez v. Sec’y of HHS, 794 F Supp. 58 (D.Puerto

OCD GOO cc occcevccssennstcebeneeeeel Pere
Rosado v. Bowen, 823 F.2d 40 (2d Cir. 1987).. _.. 24

Rollins v. Sullivan, 784 FSupp. 253 (E.D.Pa. 1992)... 21
Russell v. Sullivan, 930 F.2d 1443 (9th Cir. 1991)... 20
Sansano v. Sullivan, 788 F Supp. 218 (D.NJ. 1992)... . 29
Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221 (1981)...... | 25
Sesker v. Sullivan, 779 F Supp. 1042 (W.D.Mo. 1991)... . 21

Spurlock v. Sullivan, 783 F.Supp. 474 (N.D.Cal.
1992), reaff'd, 790 FSupp. 979 (N.D.Cal. 1992). 21, 23

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page
Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U.S. 617 (1990) ....... passim
Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877 (1989).......... passim
Sullivan v. Sullivan, 738 F.Supp. 332 (W.D.Mo.

DE Dodge sean eREMGdSGhKEsbewsncedesedecesecevcs: 25
Taylor v. Heckler, 608 F.Supp. 1255 (D.N.J. 1985) ..... 20
Thomas for Brown v. Sullivan, 785 F.Supp. 788 (C.D.

i cGcenchahdGubtdeSbcenecuepasecccecoccecs 21

Wilson v. Heckler, 610 F.Supp. 120 (W.D.Mo. 1985) .... 27
Xiong v. Sullivan, No. CIV-S-91-0860 DFL GRH

(E.D.Cal. Feb. 2, 1993) (unpublished).............. 21
STATUTES
Pub.L.No. 99-80, § 3 (1988), 99 Stat. 186 (28 U.S.C.

A cc ces beasekbeeknest Second, any
eventual SSI award is retroactive only to the date of
application; under Title Il, the award may include the
twelve month period prior to application.24 Third, in
contrast to Title II cases, counsel cannot obtain prompt
and full payment on a contingency contract with an SSI
claimant through the Secretary’s withholding of a portion
of the retroactive award, since the withholding provisions
of 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) are inapplicable to SSI cases.
Bowen v. Galbreath, 485 U.S. at 79. Fourth, and most
important, is the fact that SSI disability claims often are
inherently more difficult to win on the merits. Desper-
ately poor persons cannot afford health care, and typ-
ically there exists scant medical documentation needed to
prove the claim. The cost to counsel of obtaining expert
examinations often is not worth the risk of non-
reimbursement.

For all of these reasons, the prospect of compensation
under the EAJA provides the only inducement for repre-
sentation of SSI claimants, and certainly is a primary
incentive for the undertaking of Title II cases as well. See
Sansano v. Sullivan, 788 F.Supp. 218, 219 (D.N.J. 1992)
(“Without the prospect of an award of attorney’s fees, it is
unlikely that the wrongful denial of Social Security bene-
fits would ever be vindicated.”). Therefore, this Court
must not accept the Secretary's invitation to “snatch away
a lifeline it [has] previously dangled within the Social
Security claimant’s grasp,” and to “pierce the heart of the
intent of the EAJA.” Sansano, 788 F.Supp. at 224. Even if

23 Currently the federal SSI monthly benefit rate for a single
person is $434. 57 Fed.Reg. 48619 (Oct. 27, 1992).

24 Compare 20 C.F.R. § 404.621(a)(1)(ii) with 20 C.F.R.
§ 416.335.

30

the Secretary’s interpretation of the appropriate filing
period in a fourth sentence remand is correct, no reason
exists to deny compensation for time incurred in the
post-remand administrative proceedings.2> The Court
should explicitly reject the Secretary’s request to render
Hudson meaningless by limiting its holding to sixth sen-
tence remands, and confirm that respondent’s EAJA
application was timely filed.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the court of appeals should be
affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

Gary F. SmitH Gut Derorp
(Counsel of Record) National Senior Citizens
Legal Services of Law Center
Northern California, 1052 West 6th Street,
Inc. Suite 700
619 North Street Los Angeles, California
Woodland, California 90017
95695 (213) 482-3550

(916) 662-1065 Attorneys for Amici Curiae

Legal Services of Northern
California and National
Senior Citizens Law Center

25 Since under the Secretary’: theory the district court must
hold in abeyance the claimant’s EAJA application until after the
administrative proceedings are concluded, Pet. Br. at 26-27, the
district court certainly could permit amendment of the applica-
tion to include a claim for time incurred subsequent to the
remand. Myers v. Sullivan, 916 F.2d 659, 679 n. 20 (11th Cir. 1990).

la

I. COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS REJECTING
THE SECRETARY’S MELKONYAN-RELATED
EFFORT TO BAR, AS UNTIMELY, A PLAINTIFF’S
POST-REMAND APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY'S
FEES UNDER THE EAJA

Gray v. Sullivan, __F.2d__, No. 91-55380 (9th Cir. Jan. 15,
1993);

Carter v. Sullivan, 976 F.2d 1197 (8th Cir. 1992);

Labrie v. Secretary of HHS, 976 F.2d 779 (ist Cir. 1992);

Scas!on v. Sullivan, 974 F.2d 107 (9th Cir. 1992);

Young v. Sullivan, 972 F.2d 830 (7th Cir. 1992);

Hafner v. Sullivan, 972 F.2d 249 (8th Cir. 1992);

Baker on behalf of Baker v. Sullivan, 956 F.2d 234 (11th Cir.
1992);

Gutierrez v. Sullivan, 953 F.2d 579 (10th Cir. 1992), cert.
pending, No. 92-361;

Richard v. Sullivan, 955 F.2d 354 (Sth Cir. 1992);

Cummings v. Sullivan, 955 F.2d (7th Cir. 1991);

Luna v. U.S. Dept. of HHS, 948 F.2d 169 (5th Cir. 1991);

Damato v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 982 (7th Cir. 1991);

Sargent v. Sullivan, No. 90-1521 (4th Cir. Aug. 22, 1991)
(unpublished).

2a

Il. DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS REJECTING THE
SECRETARY’S MELKONYAN-RELATED ARGU-
MENTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH PLAIN-
TIFF’S ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEY’S FEES
UNDER THE EAJA

1. Cases holding that the court retains jurisdiction
to entertain EAJA application filed subsequent
to conclusion of post-fourth sentence remand
administrative proceedings

Ryder v. Sullivan, 804 F.Supp. 1365 (D.Colo. 1992)
Bodner v. Sullivan, 804 F.Supp. 23 (N.D.Cal. 1992)
Baker v. Sec'y of HHS, 799 F.Supp. 232 (D.N.H. 1992)
Lenz v. Sec'y of HHS, 798 F.Supp. 69 (D.N.H. 1992)
Rodriguez v. Sec’y of HHS, 794 F.Supp. 58 (D.Puerto Rico
1992)
Mendez v. Sullivan, 792 F.Supp. 375 (E.D.Pa. 1992)
Kling v. Sec’y of HHS, 790 F.Supp. 145 (N.D.Ohio 1992)
Van Tassell v. Sullivan, 789 F.Supp. 1108 (D.Colo. 1992)
Winn v. Sullivan, 787 F.Supp. 172 (E.D.Mo. 1992)
Sparling v. Sullivan, 785 F.Supp. 312 (N.D.N.Y. 1992)
Heredia v. Sullivan, 783 F.Supp. 1550 (D.Puerto Rico 1992)
Carter v. Sullivan, 782 F.Supp. 1251 (N.D.II1. 1991)
Muniz v. Sullivan, 780 F.Supp. 743 (D.Colo. 1992)
Linkins v. Sullivan, 779 F.Supp. 1324 (M.D.Fla. 1991)
Thomas v. Sullivan, 778 F.Supp. 473 (W.D.Mo. 1992)
Merryman v. Sullivan, 778 F.Supp. 475 (W.D.Mo. 1991)
Lineberry v. Sullivan, 778 F.Supp. 1087 (W.D.Mo. 1992)
Parsons v. Sullivan, 140 F.R.D. 352 (S.D.Ohio 1992)

3a

2. Cases in which courts declined to apply Melko-
nyan’s fourth sentence remand timeliness dis-
cussion retroactively

Defrancesco v. Sullivan, 803 F.Supp. 1332 (N.D.IIl. 1992)

Carrol v. Sullivan, 802 F.Supp. 295 (C.D.Cal. 1992)

Lindner v. Sullivan, 799 F.Supp. 888 (N.D.IIl. 1992)

Sansano v. Sullivan, 788 F.Supp. 218 (D.N.J. 1992)

Green v. Sullivan, 788 F.Supp. 275 (W.D.Va. 1992)

Bacon v. Sec’v of HHS, 786 F.Supp. 434 (D.N.J. 1992)

Thomas for Brown v. Sullivan, 785 F.Supp. 788 (C.D.III.
1992)

Rollins v. Sullivan, 784 F.Supp. 253 (E.D.Pa. 1992)

Santiago v. Sullivan, 783 F.Supp. 223 (E.D.Pa. 1992)

Lopez v. Sullivan, 780 F.Supp. 496 (N.D.III. 1991)

Sykes v. Sullivan, 779 F.Supp. 29 (E.D.Pa. 1991)

Butts v. Bowen, 775 F.Supp. 1167 (N.D.III. 1991), reaff'd, 778
F.Supp. 453 (N.D.IIl. 1991)

3. Cases in which courts construed the remand at
issue as a “sentence six” remand

Rivera-Sanchez v. Sec’'y of HHS, 786 F.Supp. 147 (D.Puerto
Rico 1992)
Robinson v. Sullivan, 783 F.Supp. 245 (E.D.N.C. 1991)
Kolman v. Sullivan, 782 F.Supp. 423 (E.D.Wis. 1992)
Burr v. Sullivan, 782 F.Supp. 1285 (N.D.III. 1992)
Hudson v. Sullivan, 779 F.Supp. 37 (W.D.Pa. i991)
Johnson v. Sullivan, 779 F.Supp. 1277 (D.S.C. 1991)
Thomas v. Sullivan, 778 F.Supp. 473 (W.D.Mo. 1992)
Woods v. Sullivan, 778 F.Supp. 976 (N.D.III. 1991)

4a

4. Cases in which courts have held that the claim-
ant qualifies as a “prevailing party” simply by
virtue of obtaining a “fourth sentence” remand
order

Gagnon v. Sullivan, 792 F.Supp. 873 (D.Me. 1992)
Spurlock v. Sullivan, 783 F.Supp. 474 (N.D.Cal. 1992),
reaff'd, 790 F.Supp. 979 (N.D.Cal. 1992)

Mills v. Sullivan, 782 F.Supp. 1347 (W.D.Mo. 1992)
Sesker v. Sullivan, 779 F.Supp. 1042 (W.D.Mo. 1991)
Dow v. Sullivan, 774 F.Supp. 46 (D.Me. 1991)

5. Cases in which courts retained jurisdiction fol-
lowing a remand order which was characterized
as neither “fourth” nor “sixth” sentence in char-
acter

Petrie v. Sullivan, 800 F.Supp. 632 (N.D.III. 1992)
Ground v. Sullivan, 785 F.Supp. 557 (S.D.Cal. 1992)

6. Cases in which courts have equitably tolled the
EAJA statute of limitations

Boronat v. Sullivan, 788 F.Supp. 557 (S.D.Fla. 1992)
Goldbach v. Sullivan, 779 F.Supp. 9 (N.D.N.Y. 1991)

7. Cases in which courts have reopened the judg-
ment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)

Misciagno v. Sec’'y of HHS, 786 F.Supp. 1120 (E.D.N.Y.
1992)

5a

Il. DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS ADOPTING THE
SECRETARY'S MELKONYAN-RELATED ARGU-
MENTS TO BAR AN APPLICATION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EAJA AS
UNTIMELY

Pettyjohn v. Sullivan, 801 F.Supp. 503 (W.D.Okla. 1992)
Salvador v. Sullivan, 786 F.Supp. 830 (N.D.Cal. 1992)
Audette v. Sec’y of HHS, 776 F.Supp. 84 (D.R.I. 1991)
Fergason v. Sullivan, 771 F.Supp. 1008 (W.D.Mo. 1991)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385013_0342%3A09. Public record. Not legal advice.