Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01677/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01677-1/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)

---

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

Gayle S. Barry, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social

Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-01677-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s attorney’s Application for Award of Attorneys’ Fees

Under the Equal Access to Justice Act. (Doc. 34.) Plaintiff’s attorney refers to himself as

“Petitioner” in his briefs and the Court will do the same. The Commissioner does not oppose

an award of attorney’s fees, but the Commissioner does oppose Petitioner’s request for an

enhanced fee. The Court will award attorney’s fees, but the Court will not award an

enhanced fee.

The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) awards attorneys fees to a prevailing litigant

if the Government’s position was not substantially justified. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The

Commissioner has chosen not to advance a substantial justification argument here. The

Court will therefore award fees.

The EAJA dictates that “attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per hour

unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as

Case 2:09-cv-01677-NVW Document 40 Filed 03/10/11 Page 1 of 4
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

1

See http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000039. According

to the Ninth Circuit, the 2010 rate is only for the first half of 2010, but the Ninth Circuit has

not since published a rate for work in the second half of 2010. The Court will therefore treat

this rate as covering all of 2010.

- 2 -

the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher

fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). The Ninth Circuit has since made cost-of-living

adjustments to the $125 base rate, which now stands at $172.24/hour for work done in 2009,

and $174.64/hour for work done in 2010.1

 But “a special factor” is still required before the

Court may award fees at a higher hourly rate.

In the Social Security context, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pirus v. Bowen, 869

F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1989), clarifies when “a special factor” is present. Pirus affirmed an

enhanced fee award because it was “no routine disability case,” and the plaintiff’s attorney

possessed the “special expertise” needed to litigate the case as a class action involving “a

highly complex area of the Social Security Act.” Id. at 542.

This case, by contrast, was “routine,” involving typical arguments about the ALJ’s

credibility determinations, residual functional capacity assessment, and so forth. Therefore,

no special factors exist to justify enhanced fees.

Petitioner argues that he deserves enhanced fees because he litigates more efficiently

than most Social Security lawyers. He claims to have completed this case in 28.75 hours of

work. The Court agrees that 28.75 hours is less time than the 30–40 hours this Court

typically sees in disability-related EAJA applications. But Petitioner’s’s itemized statement

of services adds up to 34.75 hours, not 28.75. (See Doc. 34 at 10–12 (showing 4.45 hours

in 2009 and 30.3 in 2010, but added up to a “total” of 28.75).) Perhaps Petitioner intended

to write off four hours, but in any event, given the routine nature of this particular appeal, the

Court does not believe that Petitioner’s potential efficiency advantage is a “special factor”

meriting enhanced fees in this case.

Further, the Court is concerned that Petitioner has streamlined his practice perhaps too

much. Apart from the hours calculation error, Petitioner represents to this Court that his “last

Case 2:09-cv-01677-NVW Document 40 Filed 03/10/11 Page 2 of 4
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 2

(4.45 hours in 2009 × $172.24) + (30.3 hours in 2010 × $174.64) = $6,058.06.

- 3 -

request for enhancement [of attorneys fees] was in 2006.” (Doc. 34 at 7 n.3.) This is not

correct. Plaintiff’s attorney requested enhanced fees in a separate case three months ago.

See Loveless v. Astrue, 2:09-cv-00830-JWS, ECF #25 (filed Oct. 7, 2010). He also

requested enhanced fees in 2009, 2008, and 2007. See, e.g., Abrahamson v. Astrue,

2:07-cv-01650-JAT, ECF #41 (filed June 24, 2009); Wolff v. Astrue. 2:06-cv-02821-ROS,

ECF #37 (filed June 27, 2008); Schroeder v. Astrue, 2:06-cv-01420-HRH, ECF #38 (filed

Jan. 14, 2008); Torrez v. Astrue, 2:06-cv-01178-MHB, ECF #40 (filed June 16, 2008);

Burggraff v. Barnhart, 2:06-cv-00818-NVW, ECF #28 (filed Aug. 2, 2007).

The Court does not mean to suggest dishonesty. The Court presumes this was an

oversight. Nonetheless, the Court will award fees at the current base rates of $172.24/hour

for work done in 2009, and $174.64/hour for work done in 2010. The question is whether

to grant fees for the 28.75 hours he claims or the 34.75 hours listed on his time statement.

Although the Court would normally award fees only for the 28.75 hours claimed, the

Commissioner agrees to an award of $6,058.06, which reflects Petitioner’s actual time of

34.75 hours.2

 Accordingly, the Court will award the amount agreed to by the Commissioner.

The Supreme Court recently held that the fees awarded under the EAJA must be paid

to the claimant, not the attorney. Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 2524 (2010). Plaintiff’s

attorney acknowledges Ratliff but asks that fees be awarded to “Plaintiff, in care of Plaintiff’s

counsel . . . consistent with the contractual assignment of EAJA fees from Plaintiff to

[counsel] [as evinced by the fee agreement attached as an exhibit].” (Doc. 34 at 8.) Whether

the Commissioner wishes to award fees to Plaintiff directly or “in care of Plaintiff’s counsel”

is a matter this Court will leave to the Commissioner’s discretion. Whether Plaintiff has

assigned that award to her attorney is a matter for Plaintiff and her attorney to resolve.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Application for Award of Attorneys’ Fees

Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 34) is GRANTED to the extent stated in this

order.

Case 2:09-cv-01677-NVW Document 40 Filed 03/10/11 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Gayle S.

Barry in the amount of $6,058.06 against Defendant.

DATED this 10th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-01677-NVW Document 40 Filed 03/10/11 Page 4 of 4