Connection lost
Server error
William RAINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellant 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: A court rejected an enhanced attorney’s fee award under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), finding that social security law is not a “special factor” justifying rates above the statutory cap. It also denied fees for post-remand administrative work, holding the remand order was a final judgment.
Legal Significance: This case narrowly interprets the EAJA’s “special factor” exception for enhanced attorney’s fees, establishing that general expertise in a complex regulatory area like social security law is insufficient. It also clarifies that post-remand administrative proceedings are not compensable under the EAJA following a sentence-four remand.
William RAINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellant 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
William Raines applied for social security disability benefits, which were denied at all administrative levels. He sought judicial review in federal district court. The district court found the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had committed an error of law by failing to fully develop the record on Raines’s mental impairment. The court issued a remand order under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sending the case back to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. On remand, a new ALJ found Raines disabled and awarded him benefits. Raines then petitioned the district court for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The government conceded that its initial position was not substantially justified but contested the amount of the fee award. The district court awarded an enhanced hourly rate of $175, well above the statutory $75 cap, finding that the attorney’s expertise in the complex field of social security law constituted a “special factor.” The court also awarded fees for the attorney’s work during the administrative proceedings that occurred after the remand. The Secretary of Health and Human Services appealed the fee award.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the district court err in awarding enhanced attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act by finding that expertise in social security law constitutes a ‘special factor’ and by including fees for work performed in administrative proceedings following a sentence-four remand?
Yes. The court reversed the fee award, holding that expertise in social 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 v
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
Did the district court err in awarding enhanced attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act by finding that expertise in social security law constitutes a ‘special factor’ and by including fees for work performed in administrative proceedings following a sentence-four remand?
Conclusion
This decision significantly narrows the availability of enhanced EAJA fees in the 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 c
Legal Rule
Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A), an 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 incid
Legal Analysis
The Seventh Circuit analyzed two distinct issues regarding the EAJA fee award. 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 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. Lo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Social Security law is generally not a “special factor” under the