Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05167/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05167-3/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)

Michael J. Astrue became the Social Security Commissioner on February 12, 2007. Pursuant to Rule 1

25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Michael J. Astrue has been substituted for Commissioner Jo

Anne B. Barnhart as the defendant in this suit.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

MICHELLE A. LANKFORD PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 06-5167

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner 1

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

O R D E R 

On May 4, 2007, plaintiff filed a petition for attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412,

the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), requesting compensation for 27.70 hours of work before

the court at an hourly rate of $144.00. (Doc. # 14). On May 18, 2007, the defendant filed a

response objecting to counsel’s hourly rate because counsel failed to provide any explanation of

the consumer price index attached to her motion or a cost of living calculation. (Doc. # 15).

Attorney's fees may not be awarded in excess of $125.00 per hour - the maximum

statutory rate under § 2412(d)(2)(A) - unless the court finds that an increase in the cost of living

or a special factor such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys justifies a higher fee. 28

U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). The hourly rate may be increased when there is uncontested proof of

an increase in the cost of living sufficient to justify hourly attorney's fees, such as a copy of the

Consumer Price Index (CPI). Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a CPI but did not address the need

for an increase in the allowed hourly rate due to a cost of living increase in his supporting brief,

Case 5:06-cv-05167-JRM Document 16 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

a statutory requirement. Plaintiff’s counsel has until May 29, 2007, to amend her motion to

include the proper language addressing the cost of living increase. Defendant will then have ten

days to respond to plaintiff’s amended motion. 

In the future, along with the submission of the CPI, plaintiff’s counsel is reminded that

he is statutorily required to specifically discuss why he should be granted an increase in the

established hourly rate. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of May 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 5:06-cv-05167-JRM Document 16 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>