Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_02-cv-00144/USCOURTS-ared-4_02-cv-00144-0/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)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

WILLIE MCDANIELS PLAINTIFF

vs. Civil Case No. 4:02CV00144 HLJ

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United

States District Court Judge George Howard, Jr. Any party may serve

and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections

should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for

the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding,

specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports

your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be

received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no

later than eleven (11) days from the date of the findings and

recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party.

Failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right

to appeal questions of fact.

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to

submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a hearing

for this purpose before the District Judge, you must, at the same

time that you file your written objections, include the following:

Case 4:02-cv-00144-GH Document 27 Filed 10/28/05 Page 1 of 5
2

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is

inadequate.

2. Why the evidence proffered at the hearing before the

District Judge (if such a hearing is granted) was

not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate

Judge. 

3. The detail of any testimony desired to be introduced

at the hearing before the District Judge in the form

of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original,

of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence

desired to be introduced at the hearing before the

District Judge.

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the

necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing, either before the

Magistrate Judge or before the District Judge.

Mail your objections and “Statement of Necessity” to:

Clerk, United States District Court

Eastern District of Arkansas

600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 402

Little Rock, AR 72201-3325

DISPOSITION

On March 30, 2005, the District Court adopted the Recommended

Disposition by this court reversing the decision of the Commissioner

and remanding this case for further evaluation under sentence four.

Plaintiff has now filed a motion for attorney’s fees and expenses

pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. §

2412. He requests $2,318.60 in attorney’s fees, representing 3.85

hours of work performed by counsel before this court in 2002 at a

rate of $ 132.00 per hour, .60 hours of work by counsel in 2003 at

the rate of $142.00 per hour and 11.35 hours of work by counsel in

Case 4:02-cv-00144-GH Document 27 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 5
3

2004 and 2005 at the rate of $152.00 per hour. Defendant does not

object to a reasonable award of fees under the EAJA, and she does

not object to the hourly rates requested. She contends, however,

that the number of hours submitted by Plaintiff is excessive. 

She first challenges two hours submitted for work performed n

February 16, 2002, which she contends was performed at the

administrative level. The remand in this case was pursuant to

sentence four, under which the District Court did not retain

jurisdiction. A plaintiff may not recover fees at the

administrative level under EAJA. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292,

300-01 (1993). “[T]he attorney's fees recoverable when a

sentence-four remand is obtained are those fees incurred before the

district court, and not those fees incurred subsequent to remand at

the administrative level.” Sorich v. Shalala, 838 F.Supp. 1354,

1357 (D.Neb. 1993)(footnote omitted). In this case, however, the

time challenged was not time spent at the administrative level, but

time spent with Plaintiff after the decision at the administrative

level, determining whether to appeal to this court. I find the time

should be allowed and deny Defendant’s challenge.

Defendant also challenges one hour Plaintiff lists as

“miscellaneous client contacts,” which has no specific date, but

which he includes in his calculation of hours expended in 2004 at

$152.00 per hour. Defendant contends the description is too vague

to qualify for reimbursement. The argument is well-taken. The

Case 4:02-cv-00144-GH Document 27 Filed 10/28/05 Page 3 of 5
4

court is unable to tell from Plaintiff’s description whether the

“contact” was made by counsel, when it was made, or whether it even

pertained to this case, and the one hour will be disallowed. 

 The maximum statutory rate of compensation set forth in §

2412(d)(2)(A)(ii) is $125.00 for work performed by an attorney.

This court has granted an 11% cost of living increase in this rate,

to $138.00 per hour, based on the Consumer Price Index, where

counsel has made a sufficient showing of the increase. Although

Plaintiff in this case has not made such a showing, and thus is not

entitled to an increased rate on that basis, the Office of the

General Counsel of the Social Security Administration has entered

into agreements with counsel for other plaintiffs in cases in this

district to calculate attorneys’ fees on an annualized basis, using

the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). The

parties in those cases agreed that work performed in 2001 should be

compensated at the rate of $138.00 per hour, work performed in 2002

should be compensated at the rate of $144.00 per hour, work

performed in 2003 should be compensated at the rate of $147.00 and

work performed in 2004 should be compensated at the rate of $152.00

per hour. Since Plaintiff’s hourly rate requests fall within those

agreed rates, the court will grant Plaintiff’s requested rates.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s

fees is GRANTED AS MODIFIED and Plaintiff is hereby awarded

attorney’s fees in the amount of $2166.60 pursuant to EAJA. The

Case 4:02-cv-00144-GH Document 27 Filed 10/28/05 Page 4 of 5
5

Commissioner is directed to certify said award and pay Plaintiff’s

attorney this amount.

SO ORDERED this 28th day of October, 2005.

 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:02-cv-00144-GH Document 27 Filed 10/28/05 Page 5 of 5