Clarifying the Timeliness of 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) Attorney's Fee Applications under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B): Insights from Sinkler v. Berryhill

Introduction

Sinkler v. Berryhill, 932 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2019), is a pivotal case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that addresses the procedural requirements for filing attorney's fee applications under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The case involves Lakisha Janey Sinkler, a successful Social Security claimant who sought to award attorney's fees after prevailing in her supplemental Social Security income claim. The core issue in this appeal revolves around the applicability of the fourteen-day filing period stipulated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P.) 54(d)(2)(B) to § 406(b) fee applications, and whether an alternative "reasonable" period under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) should apply instead.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny Sinkler's application for attorney's fees as untimely. Sinkler had filed her § 406(b) motion more than six months after receiving notice of the Commissioner of Social Security's benefits award, well beyond the fourteen-day deadline prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B). Despite equitable tolling provisions, the court determined that Sinkler failed to demonstrate that her delayed filing was reasonable. Consequently, her motion was rightfully denied under the established procedural rules.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court extensively referred to various precedents to support its decision. Key among them were:

WALKER v. ASTRUE, 593 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2010) – Applied Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 to § 406(b) fee motions.
PIERCE v. BARNHART, 440 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2006) – Similar application of Rule 54 to fee motions.
Bergen v. Comm'r of Soc'r Security, 454 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2006) – Confirmed Rule 54’s applicability with equitable tolling.
McGRAW v. BARNHART, 450 F.3d 493 (10th Cir. 2006) – Contrasting approach using Rule 60(b) instead of Rule 54.

These cases illustrate a circuit split on whether Rule 54 or Rule 60 should govern the timeliness of § 406(b) fee applications. The Second Circuit sided with the majority of circuits applying Rule 54, emphasizing the fourteen-day filing requirement with provisions for equitable tolling.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the interpretation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B) in the context of § 406(b) fee applications. The district court had applied the fourteen-day deadline strictly, denying Sinkler’s motion as it was filed six months late. The Appellate Court agreed, asserting that:

Rule 54(d)(2)(B) specifies a fourteen-day period for filing attorney's fee motions following a judgment, which includes "sentence four" remand orders.
Equitable tolling can pause this deadline until the claimant receives notice of the benefits award, as the exact fee cannot be determined without this information.
Once the claimant is notified of the benefits award, the fourteen-day period commences, aligning with the need to prevent indefinite delays.
The flexibility intended by equitable tolling was sufficient to address practical delays in calculating benefits, but not to justify a six-month delay.

Additionally, the court dismissed Sinkler's argument for applying Rule 60(b), which allows for relief from final judgments for “any reason that justifies relief,” as inconsistent with the Supreme Court's guidance and lacking sufficient justification in this context.

Impact

This judgment clarifies the procedural requirements for Social Security claimants seeking attorney's fees under § 406(b). By affirming the application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B), the court reinforces the importance of adhering to strict filing deadlines. This decision:

Provides clear guidance to claimants and their attorneys regarding the timeline for filing fee applications.
Encourages prompt action upon receipt of benefits awards, thereby streamlining the process and reducing uncertainty.
Potentially limits claimants' ability to delay filing motions, thereby promoting judicial efficiency and reducing the court's docket burden.

Future cases will likely reference this judgment when addressing similar procedural timeliness issues, potentially leading to uniformity in how courts apply Rule 54 in the context of § 406(b).

Complex Concepts Simplified

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B)

This rule mandates that, unless otherwise specified by statute or court order, motions for attorney's fees must be filed within fourteen days after the entry of a judgment. In the context of § 406(b), this rule sets a strict deadline for claimants to request fees following a favorable judgment.

42 U.S.C. § 406(b)

Under this statute, a court may award reasonable attorney's fees to a claimant who has successfully obtained benefits through legal representation. The fee is typically capped at 25% of the past-due benefits awarded.

Sentence Four Remand

This refers to a specific type of remand order in Social Security cases where the court reverses a denial of benefits and sends the case back to the Social Security Administration (SSA) for further proceedings. It is considered a final and appealable judgment.

Equitable Tolling

This is a legal principle that allows courts to extend deadlines under certain circumstances, such as when a claimant is unable to meet a filing deadline due to factors beyond their control. In this case, equitable tolling was applied to pause the fourteen-day filing period until the claimant received notice of the benefits award.

Conclusion

The Second Circuit's decision in Sinkler v. Berryhill underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural deadlines for attorney's fee applications under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). By affirming the application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B), the court reinforces a clear, predictable framework for claimants seeking judicial awards of attorney's fees. This judgment not only resolves the existing circuit split but also provides a definitive rule that promotes fairness and efficiency within Social Security litigation. Practitioners must ensure timely filings to secure attorney's fees, and claimants should be aware of the stringent deadlines that govern such applications.