Shelia Jones v. Nancy Berryhill

699 F. App'x 587
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 30, 2017
Docket17-1290
StatusUnpublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 699 F. App'x 587 (Shelia Jones v. Nancy Berryhill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shelia Jones v. Nancy Berryhill, 699 F. App'x 587 (8th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After plaintiff Shelia Jones was awarded past-due disability benefits by the Social Security Administration (SSA) on remand by the district court, she sought—through counsel—$13,000 in attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The district court found that the hourly fee resulting from the requested amount was excessive, and that the $4,244.82 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act—upon the district court’s remand to the SSA— was appropriate. Jones appeals.

The Supreme Court has stated that, while the district court may consider the hourly rate in determining the reasonableness of a fee award, the court must first consider the fee agreement, testing it for reasonableness; then reduce the fees based on the character of the representation and results achieved, whether counsel was responsible for delay, and whether the benefits achieved were large in comparison to the time expended by counsel. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807-08, 122 S.Ct. 1817, 152 L.Ed.2d 996 (2002). Because the record does not show whether the district court conducted the required analysis, we conclude that remand is appropriate. See Jorstad v. IDS Realty Trust, 643 F.2d 1305, 1312 (8th Cir. 1981) (abuse of discretion review); see also Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 139, 126 S.Ct. 704, 163 L.Ed.,2d 547 (2005) (decision left to district court’s discretion must still be guided by sound legal principles).

Accordingly, we remand the case for further consideration consistent with this opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Higgins v. O'Malley
D. Nebraska, 2025
Wedner v. O'Malley
D. Minnesota, 2025
Jason Kertz v. Carolyn W. Colvin
125 F.4th 1218 (Eighth Circuit, 2025)
Pride v. O'Malley
D. Minnesota, 2025
Veronica Holsworth v. Kijakazi
D. South Dakota, 2024
Cross v. O'Malley
W.D. Missouri, 2024
Dooley v. O'Malley
D. Nebraska, 2024
Schellhorn v. Kijakazi
W.D. Missouri, 2023
Hurlburt v. Saul
D. Nebraska, 2023
McKinney v. Kijakazi
W.D. Missouri, 2023
Nowlin v. Kijakazi
W.D. Missouri, 2023
Bruggeman v. Kijakazi
D. Nebraska, 2023
Green v. Saul
W.D. Missouri, 2023
Mackling v. Kijakazi
D. Nebraska, 2022
Aguirre v. Saul
D. Nebraska, 2022
Howell v. Kijakazi
W.D. Missouri, 2022

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
699 F. App'x 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelia-jones-v-nancy-berryhill-ca8-2017.