Case Spotlight: Mejia v. Commissioner

When it comes to Social Security disability appeals in federal court, there are always two battles:

1. Winning the case.

2. Getting paid for the work.

   
   

The recent Ninth Circuit decision in Mejia v. Commissioner tackles the second battle, focusing on attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). This case is an important reminder that attorneys can be compensated for reasonable work on alternative arguments—even if the court doesn’t directly rule on those arguments.

The Background

The plaintiff, Mejia, challenged the Agency’s denial of her disability benefits. The District Court ruled in her favor but denied full attorney’s fees under the EAJA.

Why? The court relied on Hardisty v. Astrue (9th Cir. 2010), interpreting it to mean that attorneys can’t recover fees for arguments the court doesn’t specifically address. Mejia’s attorney had spent time developing alternative theories that weren’t ultimately adjudicated, and the District Court refused to award compensation for that work.

The Ninth Circuit’s Key Rulings

The Ninth Circuit took a different view, clarifying several important points:

• Hardisty is about eligibility, not reasonableness. Mejia had already established EAJA eligibility, so the only question was whether the hours claimed were reasonable.

• Alternative theories are part of effective advocacy. Relying on Hensley, the court noted that litigants often pursue multiple legal grounds for a single outcome. As long as the work is reasonable, those hours are compensable—even if not directly addressed by the court.

• Reasonable hours deserve full compensation. The District Court had found the 58 hours spent on the case reasonable, including 24.05 hours on alternative arguments. Since Mejia’s attorney secured a remand, the Ninth Circuit ruled the full fee of $13,426.42 should be awarded.

  
  

Key Takeaways for Practitioners

This case is a win for advocates and a practical guide for billing practices:

• Alternative arguments matter. Time spent developing reasonable, alternative theories supporting a single claim for relief is compensable, even if those arguments aren’t directly ruled on.

• Strategic advocacy pays off. Raising comprehensive legal grounds strengthens a case and supports a full fee award.

• Billing must be tied to results. Courts look for reasonableness. As the Ninth Circuit emphasized, “excellent results” justify a fully compensatory fee.

  
  

Final Thought

Mejia v. Commissioner reinforces the principle that attorneys should not be penalized for thorough advocacy. When reasonable time is spent pursuing alternative paths to secure justice for clients, EAJA ensures that work is recognized—and compensated.