Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_04-cv-02248/USCOURTS-arwd-2_04-cv-02248-2/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)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

JO L. MOORE PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 04-2248

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

O R D E R 

Plaintiff Jo. L. Moore appealed the Commissioner's denial of benefits to this court. On

March 21, 2006, judgment was entered remanding plaintiff's case to the Commissioner pursuant

to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. # 10). Plaintiff now moves for an award of

$3,278.10 in attorney's fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the Equal Access to Justice Act

(hereinafter "EAJA"), requesting compensation for 21.10 attorney hours work before the court

at an hourly rate of $146.00, and $197.50 in expenses (Doc. # 11-13). The defendant has filed

a response, expressing no objection to the award. (Doc. # 14).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), 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 burden is on the Commissioner to show substantial justification for

the government's denial of benefits. Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127, 128 (8th Cir. 1986).

Under Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302 (1993), a social security claimant who obtains a

sentence-four judgment reversing the Commissioner's denial of benefits and remanding the case

for further proceedings is a prevailing party. After reviewing the record, we find plaintiff is the

prevailing party in this matter. 

Case 2:04-cv-02248-BSJ Document 15 Filed 07/24/06 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

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). 

However, the EAJA is not designed to reimburse without limit. Pierce v. Underwood,

487 U.S. 552, 573 (1988). The district court is "in the best position to evaluate counsel’s

services and fee request, particularlywhen the court has had the opportunity to observe firsthand

Case 2:04-cv-02248-BSJ Document 15 Filed 07/24/06 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

counsel’s representation on the substantive aspects of the disability claim." Hickey v. Secretary

of HHS, 923 F.2d 585, 586 (8th Cir.1991), quoting Cotter v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 359, 361 (8th

Cir.1989). The court can determine the reasonableness and accuracy of a fee request, even in

the absence of an objection by the Commissioner. See Decker v. Sullivan, 976 F.2d 456, 459

(8th Cir.1992) ("Although the issue was not raised on appeal, fairness to the parties requires an

accurately calculated attorney’s fee award.").

The EAJA further requires an attorney seeking fees to submit "an itemized

statement...stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other expenses were

computed." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). Attorneys seeking fees under federal fee-shifting

statutes such as the EAJA are required to present fee applications with "contemporaneous time

records of hours worked and rates claimed, plus a detailed description of the subject matter of

the work." Id. Where documentation isinadequate, the court may reduce the award accordingly.

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). 

The Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, passed on March 29, 1996,

amended the EAJA and increased the statutory ceiling for EAJA fee awards from $75.00 to

$125.00 per hour. See 28 U.S.C. § 2 412(d)(2)(A). 

Plaintiff requests attorney's fees under the EAJA at a rate of $146.00 an hour based on

an increase in the cost of living. 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 decision to increase the hourly rate is not

automatic and remains at the discretion of the district court. McNulty v. Sullivan, 886 F.2d 1074

Case 2:04-cv-02248-BSJ Document 15 Filed 07/24/06 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Plaintiff’s counsel is again reminded that itemization of time for work performed on social security cases before

1

 this court should be kept short indicating only the work performed for the time requested. Extraneous notes, such

 as where or when plaintiff’s counsel ate or when she went to the doctor, should not be included in this

 itemization. 

4

(8th Cir. 1989). In Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503 (8th Cir. 1990), the court stated that 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 of more than $75.00 an hour," such as a copy of the

Consumer Price Index. Plaintiff's counsel has attached a summary of the Consumer Price Index

as an exhibit (Doc. # 13) and has presented evidence of an increase in the cost of living.

Therefore, the undersigned believes her argument for enhanced fees based on a cost of living

increase has merit. Accordingly, we find that plaintiff's counsel is entitled to an award at the rate

of $146.00 per hour.

We next address the number of hours plaintiff's counsel claimsshe spent working on this

case. Plaintiff's counsel seeks a total of 3.00 hours of work from September 22, 2004, through 1

November 9, 2004. The Complaint was not filed in this court until November 10, 2004. (Doc

# 1). We note, time spent at the administrative level is not compensable under the EAJA. See

Cornella v. Schweiker, 728 F.2d 978, 988-89 (8th Cir. 1984). However, some of the time

submitted on the above referenced dates was clearly in preparation for the filing of the Complaint

with this court. Therefore, we will allow 1.50 hours. Accordingly, 1.50 hours must be deducted

from the total compensable time sought by counsel.

Finally, counsel seeks reimbursement for $197.50 in expenses incurred with regard to the

filing fee, postage and photocopying. Such expenses are recoverable under the EAJA and we

find $197.50 to be a reasonable award. See Kelly v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 1333, 1335 (8th Cir. 1988).

Case 2:04-cv-02248-BSJ Document 15 Filed 07/24/06 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

5

Accordingly, we find that counsel is entitled to compensation under the EAJA for: 19.60

(21.10-1.50) hours for attorney’s fees, at the rate of $146.00 per hour, and $197.50 in expenses

for a total attorney's fee award of $3,059.10. This amount should be paid in addition to, and not

out of, any past due benefits which plaintiff may be awarded in the future.

The parties are reminded that the award herein under the EAJA will be taken into 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 24 day of July 2006. th

/s/ Beverly Stites Jones 

HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02248-BSJ Document 15 Filed 07/24/06 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>