DELTON V. KEMP, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGARET HECKLER, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Obtaining a remand for further administrative consideration does not make a claimant a prevailing party for purposes of an attorney fee award under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Delton V. Kemp appealed an order denying attorneys' fees under the EAJA after his case was remanded for further administrative consideration. Kemp arg…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interim Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Delton V. Kemp appeals from a district court order denying attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The district court had remanded the case for further administrative consideration pursuant to the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984. Kemp argued that since he had achieved a remand and was thus entitled to interim benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(a)(7)(A), he was therefore entitled to attorneys’ fees as a prevailing party.
This Court has previously held that obtaining a remand for further administrative consideration on the merits does not render the claimant a prevailing party for purposes of an attorney fee award under the EAJA. See Cook v. Heckler, 751 F. 2d 240, 241 (8th Cir.1984). “It is the receipt of those benefits that renders a typical Social Security claimant a prevailing party.” Id. This case is not significantly different from Cook. Although Kemp may elect to receive interim benefits, the Secretary may require repayment of those benefits if the final decision affirms the original denial of benefits.
Kemp did win his appeal to the extent that the outcome was a remand for further consideration under the proper standards, one form of relief he sought on appeal. He may therefore recover the costs of the appeal as specifically allowable by statute or rule of court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920; Cook v. Heckler, 751 F. 2d at 241; Cornella v. Schweiker, 741 F. 2d 170, 172 (8th Cir.1984).
This decision is without prejudice to any right of Kemp to submit a claim for attorneys’ fees for this appeal if he is successful at the administrative level, or for a successful civil action appealing a final administrative decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gamber v. Bowen, 823 F.2d 242 (8th Cir. 1987)
-
Weaver v. Toombs, 948 F.2d 1004 (6th Cir. 1991)
Authorities Cited
- Wallis D. Cornella v. Schweiker, 741 F.2d 170 (8th Cir. 1984)
- Griffen Cook v. Heckler, 751 F.2d 240 (8th Cir. 1984)