Connection lost
Server error
Mary B. Chynoweth v. Louis W. Sullivan, in His Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Plaintiff sought attorney’s fees exceeding the EAJA cap, arguing her counsel’s Social Security law expertise was a “special factor.” The court affirmed denial, holding such expertise, while valuable, doesn’t automatically warrant an enhanced rate under EAJA as interpreted by Pierce v. Underwood.
Legal Significance: Reinforces a narrow interpretation of the “special factor” exception under EAJA, clarifying that general subject-matter expertise, even in complex fields like Social Security law, typically does not justify attorney’s fees above the statutory cap unless it involves distinctive knowledge akin to patent or foreign law.
Mary B. Chynoweth v. Louis W. Sullivan, in His Capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Mary Chynoweth successfully challenged the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ denial of her Disabled Widow’s Insurance benefits. Following remand and an award of benefits, Chynoweth petitioned for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Her counsel requested $130 per hour, arguing his specialization in Social Security benefits law and the limited availability of such lawyers constituted a “special factor” under § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii) justifying a rate above the $75 statutory cap. Affidavits supported the reasonableness of the requested rate and the scarcity of local Social Security practitioners. The district court found the Secretary’s position was not substantially justified, entitling Chynoweth to fees. It adjusted the $75 rate to $96.75 for cost-of-living increases but, relying on Pierce v. Underwood, concluded that expertise in Social Security law was not a “special factor” warranting a further increase. Chynoweth appealed this specific determination.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does an attorney’s expertise in Social Security benefits law constitute a “special factor” under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii), justifying an award of attorney’s fees in excess of the statutory $75 per hour cap, as interpreted by Pierce v. Underwood?
Affirmed. The court held that expertise in Social Security benefits law does Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does an attorney’s expertise in Social Security benefits law constitute a “special factor” under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii), justifying an award of attorney’s fees in excess of the statutory $75 per hour cap, as interpreted by Pierce v. Underwood?
Conclusion
This case reinforces the narrow construction of the "special factor" provision in Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo cons
Legal Rule
Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A), attorney’s Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dol
Legal Analysis
The court, reviewing for abuse of discretion, applied the standard from *Pierce Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et do
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Expertise in Social Security disability law is **not automatically a “special