Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04055/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04055-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

 The Equal Access to Justice Act (hereinafter the "EAJA" ). 28 U.S.C. § 2412. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

TRACY NEFF o/b/o

BREANNA E. SESSIONS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-4055

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, Tracy Neff, appealed to this Court from the denial of child’s supplemental

security income benefits (hereinafter “SSI”), by the Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration (hereinafter "Commissioner"). On July 24, 2006, the undersigned remanded

this matter to the Commissioner, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. #9 & 10). 

Plaintiff's attorney, Greg Giles, filed Plaintiff’s Application And Affidavit For

Attorney's Fees Under 28 U.S.C.§ 2412 The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) , on July 1

26, 2006 (Doc. #11). The Commissioner responded on August 3, 2006 (Doc. #11). This

matter is now ready for consideration.

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) provides that the Court must award attorney's fees to a

prevailing social security claimant unless the Commissioner's position in denying benefits was

substantially justified. The Commissioner has the burden of proving that the denial of benefits

was substantially justified. Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127, 128 (8th Cir.1986).

Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this matter. The Commissioner does not oppose

the award of a reasonable attorney's fee under the EAJA and does not object to the hourly rate

Case 4:05-cv-04055-BES Document 13 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

requested by plaintiff’s counsel. However, she does dispute the number of hours expended

by counsel. The Court construes this lack of opposition to the award of a reasonable fee as

an admission that the government's decision to deny benefits was not "substantially justified.”

An award of attorney’s fees under the EAJA is appropriate even though at the

conclusion of the case, plaintiff’s attorney may be authorized to charge and collect a fee

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). Recovery of attorney’s fees under both the EAJA and 42

U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) was specifically allowed when Congress amended the EAJA in 1985.

Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796, 122 S.Ct. 1817, 1822, 152 L.Ed.2d 996 (2002),

citing Pub.L. 99-80, § 3, 99 Stat. 186 (1985).

To permit a fee award under the EAJA, assuming, of course, that the

necessary standard is met, in addition to that allowed by the district court

out of a claimant’s past-due benefits does no more than reimburse the

claimant for his or her expenses and results in no windfall for the attorney.

Meyers v. Heckler, 625 F.Supp. 228, 231 (S.D.Ohio 1985). Furthermore, awarding fees

under both acts facilitates the purposes of the EAJA, which is to shift to the United States the

prevailing party’s litigation expenses incurred while contesting unreasonable government

action. Id. See also, Cornella v. Schweiker, 728 F.2d 978 (8th Cir.1984).

In determining a reasonable attorney's fee, the Court will in each case consider the

following factors: time and labor required; the difficulty of questions involved; the skill

required to handle the problems presented; the attorney's experience, ability, and reputation;

the benefits resulting to the client from the services; the customary fee for similar services;

the contingency or certainty of compensation; the results obtained; and the amount involved.

Allen v. Heckler, 588 F.Supp. 1247 (W.D.N.Y. 1984).

Case 4:05-cv-04055-BES Document 13 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

The statutory ceiling for EAJA fee awards is $125.00 per hour. See 28 U.S.C. §

2412(d)(2)(A). Plaintiff’s attorney requests an award under the EAJA, at the rate of $125.00

per hour for the 25.5 hours which he asserts were devoted to the representation of plaintiff in

this Court. As previously noted, the Commissioner has raised no objection. We note that an

award based upon this hourly rate, reflecting an increase in the cost of living as set by

Congress, will result in consistent hourly fee awards in cases in Arkansas. See Johnson v.

Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 505 (8th Cir.1990). Thus, based upon the above factors, we find that

an appropriate hourly rate for the award of attorney's fees in this case is $125.00 per hour.

Further, we have reviewed counsel’s itemization of time contained in his Affidavit

(Doc. #11). Defendant has objected to 5.9 hours for which counsel seeks a fee award, as

excessive. We note that counsel seeks compensation for 2.4 hours for services performed on

July 19, 2005 (to review the unfavorable decision from the Appeals Council, and to review the

file for consideration of Federal Court Appeal). However, plaintiff’s district court case was not

filed until July 29, 2005 (Doc. #1). Thus, we find that counsel is not entitled to compensation

for this time, as it was not performed in representation of the plaintiff in the district court. See

Cornella v. Schweiker, 728 F.2d 978, 988 (8 Cir.1984);see also, Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. th

292 (1993); Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877 (1989) (An attorney is entitled to EAJA fees for

services rendered at the district court level. Thus, we find that plaintiff’s counsel is entitled

to compensation under the EAJA for 23.1 hours.

Accordingly, we find that counsel is entitled to compensation for 23.1 hours at the

rate of $125.00 per hour, for a total attorney's fee award of $2,887.50 under the EAJA.

The parties are reminded that the award herein under the EAJA will be taken into

Case 4:05-cv-04055-BES Document 13 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

4

account at such time as a reasonable fee is determined pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406, in order

to prevent double recovery by counsel for the plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 31 day of August, 2006. st

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

HONORABLE BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-04055-BES Document 13 Filed 08/31/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>