Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05245/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05245-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405g Review of HHS Decision (RSI)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

RICHARD ELLENBARGER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-5245

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Richard Ellenbarger appealed the Commissioner's denial of benefits to this court.

On September 22, 2005, judgment was entered reversing the decision of the Administrative

Law Judge and remanding plaintiff's case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of

42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

On October 17, 2005, plaintiff moved for approval of attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412,

the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), in the amount of $2,789.95, representing 22 hours of

service at a rate of $125.00 per hour and $39.95 in expenses. Defendant has filed a response,

expressing no objection to this award.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), 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 burden is on the Commissioner to show substantial justification

for the government's denial of benefits. Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127, 128 (8th Cir. 1986).

After reviewing the file, we find plaintiff is a prevailing party in this matter. Under Shalala

v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993), a social security

Case 5:04-cv-05245-JLH Document 14 Filed 01/19/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

claimant who obtains a sentence-four judgment reversing the Commissioner's denial of

benefits and remanding the case for further proceedings is a prevailing party. 

Plaintiff requests attorney's fees under EAJA at an hourly rate of $125.00. In the past, the

statutory hourly rate under EAJA was $75.00 which could be upwardly adjusted to account

for an increase in the cost of living since October 1, 1981, the effective date of EAJA as

originally enacted, or a special factor such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys.

Kelly v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 1333, 1336 (8th Cir. 1988); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). The Contract

with America Advancement Act of 1996, passed on March 29, 1996, amended EAJA and

increased the statutory ceiling for EAJA fee awards from $75 to $125 per hour. See Public

Law 104-121, § 232(b)(1). The $125.00 rate applies to civil actions filed on or after the

enactment date. Id. § 233. Consequently, we find that plaintiff's counsel is entitled to

compensation at an hourly rate of $125.00.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above, we recommend awarding plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs under

EAJA in the amount of $2,789.95. This amount should be paid in addition to, and not out of,

any past-due benefits which plaintiff may be awarded in the future.

The parties have ten days from receipt of this report and recommendation in which to file

written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may

result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that

objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court. 

Case 5:04-cv-05245-JLH Document 14 Filed 01/19/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

Dated this 19 day of January 2006. th

 /s/Beverly Stites Jones 

 HON. BEVERLY STITES JONES

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-05245-JLH Document 14 Filed 01/19/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>