Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_04-cv-06083/USCOURTS-arwd-6_04-cv-06083-0/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

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

MERNA L. LOCK PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-6083

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, Merna Lock, 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 July 21, 2005, the undersigned remanded

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

Plaintiff's attorney, Donald Pullen, filed an Application For Attorney’s Fees Under

The Equal Access to Justice Act, (hereinafter the "EAJA"), on August 2, 2005 (Doc. #13-15).

The Commissioner responded on August 18, 2005 (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

sought, and does not dispute the number of hours expended by counsel (Doc. #16, p. 1). 

The Court construes this lack of opposition to the award of a reasonable fee as an admission

Case 6:04-cv-06083-BES Document 17 Filed 10/04/05 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

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. §

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

Case 6:04-cv-06083-BES Document 17 Filed 10/04/05 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

per hour for the 18 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

December 2004 Consumer Price Index indicating an increase in the cost of living (Doc. #14,

Exhibit “A”).

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

conclude that an award based upon an hourly rate of $146.00 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 $146.00

per hour. 

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

(Doc. #15). We note that the counsel seeks compensation for a total of one (1) hour of time

for work performed on July 22, 2004, for preparing an Affidavit Evidencing Proof of

Service and filing it with the clerk of the court, and on September 10, 2004, for pulling the

file and checking the Answer date, and calendering the same. Work which could have been

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

Department of HEW, 813 F.2d 881, 884 (8th Cir. 1987). Thus, one (1) hour of the time for

which compensation is sought must be deducted. 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 17

hours.

Accordingly, we find that counsel is entitled to compensation for 17 hours at the rate

Case 6:04-cv-06083-BES Document 17 Filed 10/04/05 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

of $146.00 per hour for a total attorney's fee award of $2,482.00 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 4 day of October, 2005. th

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

HONORABLE BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:04-cv-06083-BES Document 17 Filed 10/04/05 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>