Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_23-cv-02137/USCOURTS-arwd-2_23-cv-02137-2/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

FORT SMITH DIVISION 

WILMA J. JOHNSON PLAINTIFF 

 v. CIVIL NO. 2:23-cv-02137-TLB-MEF 

MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Pending now before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act. (ECF Nos. 20). On November 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

attorney’s fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the Equal Access to Justice Act (hereinafter 

“EAJA”), requesting $7,123.14, representing a total of 3.20 attorney hours in 2023 at a rate of 

$244.62 per hour; 23.20 attorney hours in 2024 at an hourly rate of $249.80; and 5.45 paralegal 

hours at a rate of $100.00 per hour. (ECF No. 20-2). On December 5, 2024, the Commissioner 

filed a stipulation indicating the parties had agreed to an EAJA award in the amount of $6,800.00. 

(ECF No. 21). 

It is the opinion of the undersigned that the Plaintiff is entitled to a fee award in this case, 

as she is the prevailing party, the government’s decision to deny benefits was not “substantially 

justified,” the hourly rate requested for attorney hours does not exceed the CPI for the years in 

question, and the time asserted to have been spent in the representation of the Plaintiff before the 

district court is reasonable. See Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127, 128 (8th Cir. 1986) (burden is 

on the Commissioner to show substantial justification for the government’s denial of benefits); 28 

U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) (statutory ceiling for an EAJA fee award is $125.00 per hour); Johnson v. 

Case 2:23-cv-02137-TLB Document 22 Filed 12/09/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
2 

Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 505 (8th Cir. 1990) (court may determine that there has been an increase 

in the cost of living, and may thereby increase the attorney’s rate per hour, based upon the United 

States Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index (“CPI”)); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 

430 (1983) (in determining reasonableness, court looks at 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); and General Order 39 (the Court’s standing Order allowing 

for enhanced hourly rates based on the CPI-South for December of the previous year). 

Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to an attorney’s fee award under 

EAJA in the amount of $6,800.00, as agreed by the parties. 

Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 596 (2010), the EAJA fee award should be 

made payable to Plaintiff; however, if the Plaintiff has executed a valid assignment to Plaintiff’s 

attorney of all rights in a fee award and Plaintiff owes no outstanding debt to the federal 

government, the attorney’s fee may be awarded directly to Plaintiff’s attorney. 

The parties are reminded that, to prevent double recovery by counsel for the Plaintiff, the 

award herein under the EAJA will be considered at such time as a reasonable fee is determined 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406. 

Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $6,800.00 for attorney’s fees 

pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. 

The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of our 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. We remind the parties 

Case 2:23-cv-02137-TLB Document 22 Filed 12/09/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>
3 

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

court. 

 Dated this 9th day of December 2024. 

 /s/ Mark E. Ford

 HON. MARK E. FORD 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:23-cv-02137-TLB Document 22 Filed 12/09/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

<pageID>