Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_04-cv-04145/USCOURTS-arwd-4_04-cv-04145-2/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

TEXARKANA DIVISION

ROBERT JOHNSON, JR. PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-4145

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, Robert Johnson, appealed to this Court from the denial of supplemental

security income benefits (hereinafter “SSI”), by the Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration (hereinafter "Commissioner"). On February 2, 2006, the undersigned

remanded this matter to the Commissioner for further consideration (Doc. #11 & 12). 

Plaintiff's attorney, Michael Angel, filed Plaintiff’s Motion for Allowance of

Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to The Equal Access to Justice Act, (hereinafter the "EAJA"), on

April 13, 2006 (Doc. #13-15). The Commissioner responded on April 27, 2006 (Doc. #16).

This matter is now ready for consideration.

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) provides that 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 Commissioner has the burden of proving that the denial of

benefits was substantially justified. Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127, 128 (8th Cir.1986).

Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this matter. The Commissioner does not oppose the

award of a reasonable attorney's fee under the EAJA, does not object to the hourly rate

requested and does not object to the number of hours for which counsel seeks compensation

(Doc. #16, p. 1). The Court construes this lack of opposition to the award of a reasonable

Case 4:04-cv-04145-BES Document 17 Filed 05/02/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

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

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).

The statutory ceiling for EAJA fee awards is $125.00 per hour. See 28 U.S.C. §

Case 4:04-cv-04145-BES Document 17 Filed 05/02/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

2412(d)(2)(A). Plaintiff’s attorney requests an award under the EAJA, at the rate of $150.00

per hour for the 16.95 hours which he asserts were devoted to the representation of plaintiff

in this Court. In support of his request for a higher hourly rate, he has attached a copy of

the Consumer Price Index indicating an increase in the cost of living (Doc. #14, attachment

#2).

As has been noted, the Commissioner has raised no objection. However, we

conclude that an award based upon an hourly rate of $148.00 per hour, reflecting an increase

in the cost of living, will result in consistent hourly fee awards in cases in Arkansas. See

Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 505 (8th Cir.1990). Thus, based upon the above factors,

we find that an appropriate hourly rate for the award of attorney's fees in this case is $148.00

per hour. 

Further, we have reviewed counsel’s itemization of time contained in his Declaration

(Doc. #15). Counsel seeks reimbursement for.75 hours expended on September 20, 2004

(Doc. #15, p. 1). This administrative work was performed approximately one (1) month

prior to the date this action was filed in the district court, thus it cannot be compensated

under the EAJA. Cornella v. Schweiker, 728 F.2d 978, 988-989 (8th Cir.1984).

Accordingly, the undersigned deducts .75 hours from the compensable time sought. 

In addition, counsel seeks compensation for one (1) hour on October 18, 2004

(“Received and reviewed In Forma Pauperis. Reviewed file, drafted complaint, completed

necessary paperwork to proceed in District Court (summons, cover sheet, memo to file) and

forwarded to District Court for processing”) (Doc. #15, p. 1). Work which could have been

performed by support staff is not compensable under the EAJA. Granville House, Inc. v.

Case 4:04-cv-04145-BES Document 17 Filed 05/02/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

Department of HEW, 813 F.2d 881, 884 (8th Cir.1987). Thus, an additional .5 hours must

be deducted, for a total deduction of 1.25 hours. The remainder of the time asserted to be

spent in representation of the plaintiff before the district court, is found to be reasonable.

Thus, we find that plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to compensation under the EAJA for 15.7

hours.

Accordingly, we find that counsel is entitled to compensation for 15.7 hours at the

rate of $148.00 per hour for a total attorney's fee award of $2,323.60 under the EAJA.

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, 2006. nd

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

HONORABLE BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:04-cv-04145-BES Document 17 Filed 05/02/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>