Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05130/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05130-2/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)

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

Pursuant to Rule 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

SHERRY I. HEROD PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 05-5130

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE , Commissioner 1

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, SherryHerod, appealed the Commissioner's denial of benefits to this court. On

September 5, 2006, judgment was entered remanding plaintiff’s case to the Commissioner

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. # 7). Plaintiff now moves for an award

of $1,900.00 in attorney’s fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the Equal Access to Justice Act

(hereinafter "EAJA"), requesting compensation for 12.50 hours of work before the court at an

hourly rate of $140.00 and $150.00 in expenses. (Doc. # 8, 9). The defendant has filed a

response, expressing no objections to this award. (Doc. # 11).

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.

Case 5:05-cv-05130-JLH Document 12 Filed 02/21/07 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

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. 

The Commissioner filed a response expressing no objection to the award of a reasonable

attorney's fee under the EAJA, the hourly rate requested by plaintiff’s counsel for attorney’s fees

or the number of hours expended by plaintiff's counsel. (Doc. # 14). 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

Case 5:05-cv-05130-JLH Document 12 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

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.").

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

amended the EAJA and increased the statutory ceiling for the 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 an hourly rate of $125.00. We find plaintiff's attorney entitled to compensation at this

rate. 

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

Case 5:05-cv-05130-JLH Document 12 Filed 02/21/07 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

4

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). 

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 not attached a summary of the Consumer Price Index as an exhibit and has

not presented evidence of an increase in the cost of living. Accordingly, we find that plaintiff's

counsel is entitled to an hourly rate of $125.00 per hour.

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

case. Counsel has requested 8.00 hours of compensation for the preparation of a six page appeal

brief and 1.00 hour compensation for reviewing the report and recommendation reversing and

remanding the case to the Administration. We find this time to be excessive. Therefore we are

deducting 2.50 hours from the total number of compensable hours sought. 

Counsel also seeks reimbursement for $150.00 in expenses. Such expenses are

recoverable under the EAJA and we find $150.00 to be a reasonable award. See Kelly v. Bowen,

Case 5:05-cv-05130-JLH Document 12 Filed 02/21/07 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

5

862 F.2d 1333, 1335 (8th Cir. 1988).

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

for: 10.00 (12.50-2.50) attorney hours, at the rate of $125.00 per hour, and $150.00 in expenses,

for a total attorney's fee award of $1,400.00. 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.

Dated this 21st day of February 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05130-JLH Document 12 Filed 02/21/07 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>