Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_07-cv-03002/USCOURTS-arwd-3_07-cv-03002-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

CONSTANCE L. MELLANG PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 07-3002

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Constance L. Mellang appealed the Commissioner's denial of benefits to this

court. On January 17, 2008, judgment was entered remanding plaintiff's case to the

Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. # 8). On April 14, 2008,

plaintiff moved for an award of $1,529.28 in attorney's fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412,

the Equal Access to Justice Act (hereinafter "EAJA"), requesting compensation for 5.50 attorney

hours of work before the court at an hourly rate of $150.00, 8.75 paralegal hours at an hourly rate

of $75.00 and $48.03 in expenses. (Doc. # 9-10). Defendant has filed a response, expressing

no objection to this award. (Doc.# 11).

§ 406 Fees:

Statutory provision for the award of attorney's fees is found in 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1).

We find this request is premature, in that there has been no submission of evidence indicating

plaintiff has been successful upon remand and has been awarded benefits from which an

appropriate fee may be paid. The fee awarded an attorney under 42 U.S.C. § 406 is paid out of

Case 3:07-cv-03002-JLH Document 12 Filed 05/02/08 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

any past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled. See 42 U.S.C. § 406(a), (b); 20 C.F.R.

§ 404.1720(b)(4). Plaintiff’s counsel routinely requests fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

406(b)(1) as an alternative should the court not grant fees pursuant to the EAJA. We

recommend to plaintiff’s counsel that he review the requirements needed to seek fees

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) and to refrain from requesting such fees as an alternative

in every petition for fees pursuant to the EAJA.

EAJA Fees:

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). After

reviewing the file, we find plaintiff is a prevailing party in this matter. 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. 

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). 

Case 3:07-cv-03002-JLH Document 12 Filed 05/02/08 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

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

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.").

Case 3:07-cv-03002-JLH Document 12 Filed 05/02/08 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

4

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’s counsel requests attorney's fees under the EAJA at a rate of $150.00 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 (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 to his Memorandum of Law (Doc. # 10) and has presented evidence of an

increase in the cost of living. Therefore, the undersigned believes his argument for enhanced

Case 3:07-cv-03002-JLH Document 12 Filed 05/02/08 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

5

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 $150.00 per hour.

Plaintiff’s counsel has also requested paralegal hours of work at the rate of $75.00 per

hour. We find the hourly rate should be reduced to $65.00 per hour. 

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

case. Plaintiff's counsel seeks a total of 2.25 paralegal hours of work from January 3, 2007,

through December 22, 2006. The Complaint was filed in this court until January 3, 2007. (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 paralegal hours. Accordingly, 0.75 paralegal hour

must be deducted from the total compensable time sought by counsel.

Plaintiff’s counsel seeks 0.25 paralegal hour on January 4, 2007 (receipt and review of

file-marked copy of the Complaint with summons. Review of file), from which we deduct 0.25

paralegal hour; 0.50 paralegal hour on March 26, 2007 (letters to the Regions Chief, U.S.

Attorney and U.S. Attorney General serving the complaint upon them. Review of file), from

which we deduct 0.50 paralegal hour; 0.25 paralegal hour on June 15, 2007 (converted appeal

brief and filed electronically. Review of file), from which we deduct 0.25 paralegal hour; 0.25

paralegal hour on February 19, 2008 (preparation of the Affidavit of Plaintiff. Letter to the client

with congratulations regarding the Judgment and enclosing the Affidavit of plaintiff to be

completed and returned. Review of file), from which we deduct 0.25 paralegal hour; and 0.25

paralegal hour on March 11, 2008 (receipt and review of signed Affidavit of plaintiff from the

Case 3:07-cv-03002-JLH Document 12 Filed 05/02/08 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

6

client. Review of file), from which we deduct 0.25 paralegal hour. This time cannot be

compensated under the EAJA. Granville House, Inc. v. Department of HEW, 813 F.2d 881, 884

(8th Cir.1987) (work which could have been completed by support staff is not compensable

under the EAJA). Accordingly, we deduct 1.50 paralegal hours from the total number of

compensable hours sought.

Plaintiff’s counsel seeks 0.25 paralegal hour on May 16, 2007 (receipt and review of the

briefing schedule from U.S. District Court. Review of file). We find the time submitted to be

excessive and reduce it to 0.10 hour. Accordingly, we deduct 0.15 paralegal hour from the total

number of compensable hours sought.

Plaintiff’s counsel seeks 0.25 paralegal hour on February 22, 2008 (receipt and review

of letter from the Appeals Council regarding remanded case. Review of file), from which we

deduct 0.25 paralegal hour; 0.50 paralegal hour on March 13, 2008 (letter to ODAR requesting

copies of all the exhibits that have been generated since the last hearing. Review of file), from

which we deduct 0.50 paralegal hour; and 0.50 attorney hour on April 2, 2008 (telephone

conference with Judge Hubbard about granting benefits as of the 4/01/00 date. Review of file),

from which we deduct 0.50 attorney hour. As noted above, 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). Accordingly, we deduct 0.75 paralegal hour and 0.50 attorney hour from the total number

of compensable hours sought.

Plaintiff’s counsel seeks a total of 2.00 paralegal hours on April 11, 2008, and 0.50

attorney hour on April 14, 2008, for the research, preparation and review of the EAJA petition.

Case 3:07-cv-03002-JLH Document 12 Filed 05/02/08 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

7

We find the time sought to be excessive and deduct 1.00 paralegal hour from the total

compensable time sought by counsel. 

Finally, counsel seeks reimbursement for $48.03 in expenses incurred with regard to the

postage and photocopies. Such expenses are recoverable under the EAJA and we find $48.03 to

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

Based on the above, we recommend awarding plaintiff's attorney fees under the EAJA

for: 5.00 (5.50-0.50) attorney hours at the rate of $150.00 per hour, 4.60 (8.75-4.15) paralegal

hours at an hourly rate of $65.00, and for $48.03 in expenses, for a total attorney's fee award of

$1,097.03. 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 have ten days from receipt of our

report and recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal

questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and

specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.

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 2 day of May 2008. nd

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03002-JLH Document 12 Filed 05/02/08 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

8

Case 3:07-cv-03002-JLH Document 12 Filed 05/02/08 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: <pageID>