From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Talbott v. Bowen

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Aug 17, 1987
832 F.2d 111 (8th Cir. 1987)

Summary

In Talbott v. Bowen, 832 F.2d 111 (8th Cir. 1987), we found that where there exists a contingent fee contract along with a reimbursable attorney fee award under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), claimant's counsel is not entitled to receive both fees. Rather, counsel is limited to the award under the EAJA or the fee under the contract, whichever is greater.

Summary of this case from Ross v. Douglas County

Opinion

No. 86-2507.

August 17, 1987.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, and TIMBERS and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

Application has been made to the Court by claimant's counsel for attorney's fees to be awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The Court finds that claimant's counsel is entitled to attorney fees under the Act based upon the Secretary's failure to apply the plain language of its own regulations as they relate to light work. The Court finds that the claimant's counsel is entitled to attorney's fees for 63.75 hours at $75.00 per hour, totaling $4,781.25, plus expenses incurred in the sum of $289.83.

Claimant's counsel is also entitled to attorney's fees in the amount of 25% of claimant's past due benefits, pursuant to a contingent fee contract. However, the Court finds claimant's counsel is not entitled to receive both fees. The Court rules that claimant's counsel may receive the maximum of the greater amount found to be reimbursable under the EAJA, or the 25%. In other words, the total amount awarded shall not be greater than the larger amount of the two fees. If claimant's counsel's fee under the EAJA of $4,781.25 exceeds the amount of the contingent fee contract, then counsel will not collect anything from the claimant's back benefits. On the other hand, if the award received under the EAJA of $4,781.25 is less than the 25% contingent fee contract based upon back benefits, then claimant's counsel may collect from the claimant the difference between the 25% award and the award under the EAJA.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Talbott v. Bowen

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Aug 17, 1987
832 F.2d 111 (8th Cir. 1987)

In Talbott v. Bowen, 832 F.2d 111 (8th Cir. 1987), we found that where there exists a contingent fee contract along with a reimbursable attorney fee award under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), claimant's counsel is not entitled to receive both fees. Rather, counsel is limited to the award under the EAJA or the fee under the contract, whichever is greater.

Summary of this case from Ross v. Douglas County

In Talbott v. Bowen, 832 F.2d 111, 112 (8th Cir. 1987), the Court held that the lawyer was entitled to an award of attorney fees equal to the greater amount found to be reimbursable under BAJA or the funds withheld from the claimant's past due benefits.

Summary of this case from McDannel v. Apfel
Case details for

Talbott v. Bowen

Case Details

Full title:JERRY D. TALBOTT, APPELLANT, v. OTIS R. BOWEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH HUMAN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Aug 17, 1987

Citations

832 F.2d 111 (8th Cir. 1987)

Citing Cases

Weber v. Astrue

Fees may be awarded under both the EAJA and under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Talbott v. Bowen, 832 F.2d 111, 112…

We Who Care, Inc. v. Sullivan

In those cases, counsel is not permitted to doubledip, but can receive the maximum of the greater amount…