Melkonyan v. Sullivan
- Decided
- June 10, 1991
- Docket
- 90-5538
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,376 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that a district court may not use inherent power to remand in a disability benefits case — Donald B. Jackson v. Shirley Chater, Commissioner of Social Security (1996)
- holding that a court may remand the case after passing on its merits and issuing a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the Commissioner’s decision — Cooper v. Berryhill (2017)
- recognizing that Congress created two methods of remand under § 405(g), a sentence four and a sentence six remand — Felver v. Barnhart (2003)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
A party that prevails against the United States in a civil action is entitled, in certain circumstances, to an award of attorney’s fees, court costs, and other expenses. Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U. S. C. § 2412. Among other requirements, the prevailing party must submit to the court an application for fees and expenses “within thirty days of final judgment in the action.” § 2412(d)(1)(B). This case requires us to decide whether an administrative decision rendered following a remand from the District Court is a “final judgment” within the meaning of EAJA.
I — I In May 1982, petitioner Zakhar Melkonyan filed an application for disability benefits under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program established by Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 86 Stat. 1465, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1381 et seq.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.