## Facts

- A Social Security claimant, on behalf of a certified class, sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services challenging the denial of widow’s insurance benefits.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the claimant class on the merits, rejecting the Secretary’s interpretation or application of the Social Security Act.
- The prevailing plaintiffs sought attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
- The district court awarded EAJA fees and found “special factors” warranted an hourly rate above the statutory $75 cap, based on counsel’s specialized Social Security expertise and the complexity of the litigation.
- The Secretary appealed only the fee award, arguing (1) the government’s position was substantially justified and (2) the enhanced hourly rate was not supported by “special factors.”

## Issues

1. Whether the government’s position was “substantially justified” under EAJA, barring an award of fees to the prevailing party.
2. Whether “special factors” under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii) justified an hourly rate above the $75 EAJA cap based on specialized skill and limited availability of qualified counsel.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the award of EAJA attorney’s fees.
- The court held the government’s position was not substantially justified under the EAJA standard articulated in *Pierce v. Underwood*.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding special factors supporting an enhanced hourly rate above $75.
- The court accepted findings that the litigation required distinctive, case-specific subject-matter expertise in a complex area of Social Security law and that similarly qualified counsel was not available in the relevant market at the statutory rate.

## Legal Principles

- Under EAJA, a prevailing party is entitled to attorney’s fees unless the government shows its position was “substantially justified” or special circumstances make an award unjust.
- “Substantially justified” means justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person; the inquiry considers the government’s underlying agency position and its litigation position.
- EAJA fees generally may not exceed $75 per hour, absent a cost-of-living increase or a “special factor,” including the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved.
- A “special factor” enhancement requires more than general competence; it requires distinctive knowledge or specialized skill that is necessary to the litigation and not available at the statutory rate in the relevant market.
- Trial-court determinations on special factors and market availability are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed an EAJA fee award, holding the Secretary’s position lacked substantial justification and that the district court permissibly awarded rates above the statutory cap because the case required specialized Social Security expertise that was not otherwise available locally at $75 per hour.


Pirus v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1989)