Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00799/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00799-1/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

Sandra Y. McCoy, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

JoAnne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-0799-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff has filed an Application for Award of Attorneys’ Fees under the Equal

Access to Justice Act, seeking $1,193.25 in fees and $150.00 in costs. Doc. #26. Defendant

opposes the Application, arguing that Plaintiff’s fee request should be reduced by 1.5 hours

spent opposing Defendant’s motion to remand this case, and that Plaintiff’s request for an

enhanced hourly rate should be denied. Doc. #27. Plaintiff has filed a reply. Doc. #28.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff should recover fees for a total of 4.95 hours. The

Court will not allow Plaintiff’s requested additional 1.5 hours. The Court concludes that this

time was incurred unnecessarily. Plaintiff opposed the terms on which Defendant sought to

remand this case, arguing that a remand might result in Defendant’s reconsideration of a

different case resolved in Plaintiff’s favor. Because this Court had no authority to provide

directions regarding the reopening of a case not before it, Plaintiff’s opposition to the terms

of the remand was unnecessary. 

Case 2:04-cv-00799-DGC Document 29 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 2
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 -

The Court also concludes, however, that Plaintiff should recover fees at the hourly

rate of $185.00. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii), “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 the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the

proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.” Plaintiff’s request for a rate of $185 per hour

represents an increase of $60 above the statutory amount, and less when compared to the

adjusted base rate, which, taking into account cost of living increases since 1996, is $153.75

for 2004 and $158.75 for 2005.

The Ninth Circuit has held that attorneys practicing in the areas of Social Security law

can be reimbursed for amounts exceeding the statutory cap under certain circumstances. See

Pirus v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 536, 541-42 (9th Cir. 1991). “First, the attorney must possess

distinctive knowledge and skills developed through a practice specialty. Secondly, those

distinctive skills must be needed in the litigation. Lastly, those skills must not be available

elsewhere at the statutory rate.” Love v. Reilly, 924 F.2d 1492, 1496 (9th Cir. 1991). The

Court concludes that Plaintiff’s request for $185 per hour is appropriate under this standard.

Plaintiff’s counsel possesses distinctive knowledge and skill, that knowledge and skill was

required in this litigation, and the knowledge and skill cannot be obtained elsewhere at the

$125 statutory rate.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Award of Attorneys’ Fees under the

Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. #26) is granted. Plaintiff is awarded $915.75 in

attorneys’ fees ($185 x 4.95 hours) and $150.00 in costs.

DATED this 26th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-00799-DGC Document 29 Filed 07/27/06 Page 2 of 2