Bryant v. Commissioner of Social Security

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiff may not simply rely on the Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index to argue that the rate of inflation supports an increase of fees
• acknowledging adverse consequences of requiring EAJA payments directly to litigants but nonetheless enforcing plain language of the statute
• “Awarding these fees to plaintiffs arguably makes it less certain that attorneys taking these cases will be paid. These are legitimate concerns worthy of Congressional consideration.”
• affirming the district court’s decision to decline to vary upward from the $125 statutory rate when the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence showing an increase in that case was warranted
• “whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to an increase in the hourly attorney-fee rate is reviewed for abuse of discretion”
• “[W]e are persuaded by the plain language of the EAJA and conclude that the prevailing party, and not her attorney, is the proper recipient of attorney fees under the EAJA.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).