Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04006/USCOURTS-arwd-4_05-cv-04006-2/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

TEXARKANA DIVISION

ALAN L. BUFFALO PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-4006

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, Alan Buffalo, appealed to this Court from the denial of disability

insurance benefits (hereinafter "DIB"), and supplemental security income benefits

(hereinafter “SSI”), by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

(hereinafter "Commissioner"). On March 28, 2006, the undersigned remanded this matter

to the Commissioner for further consideration (Doc. #8 & 9). 

Plaintiff's attorney, Charles Barnette, filed a Motion For Attorney Fees pursuant

to The Equal Access to Justice Act (hereinafter the "EAJA"), on March 29, 2006 (Doc.

#10). The Commissioner filed her Response on April 13, 2006 (Doc. #11). 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 object

to the award of reasonable attorney fees and expenses under the EAJA, does not object to

the number of hours for which compensation is sought or the hourly rate requested by

Case 4:05-cv-04006-BES Document 12 Filed 04/14/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

plaintiff’s counsel. 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 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 4:05-cv-04006-BES Document 12 Filed 04/14/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

 Counsel for the plaintiff erroneously calculated 11.3 hours at an hourly rate of 1

$140.00 per hour to total $1528.00, when actually, the total is $1582.00 (Doc. #10, Exhibit 2). 

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

$140.00 per hour for the 11.3 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. #10,

Exhibit 4).

Without objection, we note that an award based upon this hourly rate, 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 $140.00 per hour. 

Further, we have reviewed counsel’s itemization of time and we find the time

asserted to be spent in representation of the plaintiff before the district court, to be

reasonable (Doc. #10, Exhibit 2). Thus, we find that plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to

compensation under the EAJA for 11.3 hours.

Accordingly, we find that counsel is entitled to compensation for 11.3 hours at

the rate of $140.00 per hour, for a total attorney's fee award of $1,582.00 under the

EAJA. 1

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 14 day of April, 2006. th

Case 4:05-cv-04006-BES Document 12 Filed 04/14/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

HONORABLE BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-04006-BES Document 12 Filed 04/14/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>