Jayne Mathews-Sheets v. Michael Astrue

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
• Decided: August 10, 2011
• Docket: 10-3746
• Status: Published

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

August 10, 2011

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 10-3746

JAYNE A. MATHEWS-SHEETS, Appeal from the United States Plaintiff-Appellant, District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis v. Division.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner No. 1:08-cv-1426-WTL-DML of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. William T. Lawrence, Judge.

ORDER

On page 7 of the slip opinion in this case issued on August 8, 2011, the following passage appears:

"The government’s brief in response said it was too much. The lawyer replied that it wasn’t too much because inflation brought the $125 statutory presumptive maximum to $170 in real terms. That was a non sequitur; a cost of living adjustment that raised the statutory fee to $170 provided no basis for an award of $225."

The passage is hereby stricken and the following substituted: No. 10-3746 Page 2

"He based his request for that fee on prevailing rates, without explicit mention of cost of living. The government's brief in response said he was asking for too much. This opened the way for him to reply that it wasn't too much because inflation brought the $125 statutory presumptive maximum to $170 in real terms. This was a permissible reply, not a forfeited argument, though it was incomplete and even a non sequitur; a cost of living adjustment that raised the statutory fee to $170 provided no basis for an award of $225."