Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00192/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00192-0/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)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Stephen W. Suchy, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-00192-PHX-ESW

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff’s fully briefed Application for Attorney 

Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (EAJA). (Doc. 28). 

Because the Plaintiff is the prevailing party for purposes of the EAJA, but was not 

successful on all claims presented, the Court will grant the Plaintiff his reasonable 

attorney’s fees as determined by the Court. 

Procedural History 

 Plaintiff appealed the Social Security Administration’s (Commissioner) denial of 

his claim for disability benefits. (Doc. 1). This Court had jurisdiction to decide the 

Plaintiff’s appeal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c). By Order filed on March 20, 

2015 (Doc. 26), the Court found that the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision 

contained harmful legal error. The Court reversed the ALJ’s decision and remanded the 

case for further administrative proceedings. (Id. at 3-4.) The Plaintiff filed his 

Application for Attorney Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. (Doc. 28). 

Case 2:14-cv-00192-ESW Document 31 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Discussion 

 That the Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this case is undisputed. The Plaintiff 

requests that the Court award the Plaintiff the full amount of attorney’s fees the Plaintiff 

has incurred to litigate his appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The Plaintiff provides an 

itemization of hours expended by counsel and a supporting affidavit. (Doc. 28-1). 

Attorney’s fees incurred by the Plaintiff to date total $8,297.10. 

 The Defendant requests that the Court reduce the amount of fees to be awarded the 

Plaintiff on the basis that the Plaintiff’s position regarding an outright award of benefits 

was unsuccessful. (Docs. 21 and 23). The Defendant cites the Court to Hensley v. 

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436-437 (1983), as authority for reducing the Plaintiff’s 

attorney’s fees requested. See also I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (1990). 

 In Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 1998), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

concluded that a district court must consider the results obtained, as required by Hensley, 

when determining whether EAJA fees requested by a prevailing party are reasonable. Id. 

In Atkins, the plaintiff prevailed in district court to the extent that the district court 

vacated the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. 

However, the plaintiff had argued before the district court for an outright award of 

benefits. Therefore, the plaintiff appealed the district court’s decision to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking an outright award of benefits, rather than a remand. 

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court. See Atkins v. Shalala, 61 

F.3d 751 (9th Cir. 1995). After exhausting remedies, the plaintiff’s position was not 

advanced by his appeal. Atkins, 154 F.3d at 987. In considering the issue of attorney’s 

fees, the Ninth Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s argument that all fees are reasonable under 

the EAJA unless a plaintiff has engaged in dilatory conduct pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2412(d)(1)(C). Instead, the Court required the district court to consider the results 

obtained consistent with Hensley. Atkins, 154 F.3d at 990. 

 In the case before the Court, the threshold determination that the Plaintiff is the 

prevailing party has been met. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. In determining whether the 

Case 2:14-cv-00192-ESW Document 31 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

attorney’s fees sought by the Plaintiff are reasonable, the Court must consider the level of 

success the Plaintiff achieved and results obtained. In his Opening Brief, the Plaintiff 

sought vacature of the ALJ’s decision and remand for a computation of benefits. (Doc. 

16 at 1 and 26). Thereafter, the Defendant filed a Motion for Remand, conceding that the 

ALJ’s decision contained harmful legal error which required reversal and remand for 

further proceedings not limited to a calculation of benefits. (Doc. 21 at 13). The 

Plaintiff, however, filed a Response to the Motion for Remand, requesting a remand for 

computation of benefits only. (Doc. 23 at 2). 

 This Court reversed the ALJ’s decision and remanded the case for further 

administrative hearings, not a direct computation of benefits. (Doc. 26). Therefore, the 

Plaintiff was only partially successful in obtaining the relief he sought. In determining an 

award of reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to Hensley, the Court considers the hours 

expended by counsel on those claims for which the Plaintiff was successful and the hours 

expended on those claims for which the Plaintiff was not successful. The Court will not 

award fees for hours spent responding to the Motion for Remand. The Court finds that 

the Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees in this case total $6,557.07 (34.5 hours x 

$190.06 per hour). 

Conclusion 

IT IS ORDERED granting Application for Attorney Fees under the Equal Access 

to Justice Act (Doc. 28). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding the Plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees 

in the amount of $6,557.07. 

 Dated this 3rd day of September, 2015. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:14-cv-00192-ESW Document 31 Filed 09/04/15 Page 3 of 3