Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_14-cv-00400/USCOURTS-alsd-2_14-cv-00400-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

SHARON WILSON, o.b.o. T.M.W., )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-00400-N

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney Fees 

under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (“EAJA”) (Doc. 23), to which 

the Defendant Commissioner has timely filed a response (Doc. 25) indicating no 

opposition to the award sought. The Plaintiff requests an award of $4,301.25 in 

attorney’s fees. Upon consideration, the Court finds that the motion is due to be 

GRANTED.1

I. Analysis

“The EAJA provides that the district court ‘shall award to the prevailing party 

other than the United States fees and other expenses ... incurred by that party in 

any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort), including proceedings for judicial 

review of agency action, brought by or against the United States ..., unless the court 

 1 By the consent of the parties (see Doc. 18), the Court has designated the undersigned 

United States Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of judgment 

in this civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73. (See

Doc. 19).

Case 2:14-cv-00400-N Document 26 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 7
2

finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special 

circumstances make an award unjust.’ ” Newsome v. Shalala, 8 F.3d 775, 777 (11th 

Cir. 1993) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A)-(B)) (footnotes omitted). “[T]hree 

statutory conditions must be satisfied before a district court can award EAJA 

attorney's fees. First, the claimant must file an application for fees within thirty 

days of final judgment in the action... Second, assuming the fee application was 

timely filed, the claimant must qualify as a prevailing party... Finally, if the 

claimant is a prevailing party who timely filed an EAJA fee application, then the 

claimant is entitled to receive attorney's fees unless the government can establish 

that its positions were substantially justified or that there exist special 

circumstances which countenance against the awarding of fees.” Myers v. Sullivan, 

916 F.2d 659, 666 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

A. Timeliness

“The Equal Access to Justice Act (‘EAJA”’) provides that a ‘party seeking an 

award of fees and other expenses shall, within thirty days of final judgment in the 

action, submit to the court an application for fees and other expenses....” 28 U.S.C. § 

2412(d)(1)(B) (1982). It is settled that a ‘final judgment’ means that the judgment 

is final and not appealable. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(G).” United States v. J.H.T., Inc., 

872 F.2d 373, 375 (11th Cir. 1989). “[T]his timely filing requirement is 

jurisdictional in nature; that is, a claimant's failure to file an EAJA application 

within thirty days of a final judgment no longer appealable precludes the district 

court from considering the merits of the fee application.” Newsome, 8 F.3d at 777 

Case 2:14-cv-00400-N Document 26 Filed 08/31/15 Page 2 of 7
3

(citing Myers, 916 F.2d at 672–73).

Where, as here, “the district court enters a ‘sentence four’ remand order[ 

under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)], that judgment is appealable.” Id. at 778. “[W]hen a 

remand was pursuant to sentence four, the 30–day filing period for applications for 

EAJA fees ‘begins after the final judgment (‘affirming, modifying, or reversing’) is 

entered by the [district] court and the appeal period has run, so that the judgment is 

no longer appealable.’ ” Id. (quoting Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 102 

(1991)).

The Court entered its “sentence four” remand order and judgment on May 13, 

2015. (See Docs. 21, 22). Because a United States agency was a party to this 

action, the time to appeal that judgment expired after sixty (60) days from May 13, 

2015. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Thus, the judgment became no longer 

appealable after July 13, 2015. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C). Because the 

Plaintiff filed her EAJA fee application on August 4, 2015, the application is timely, 

and the Court has jurisdiction to consider its merits.

B. Prevailing Party

In this action, the Plaintiff won a remand of a final decision of the 

Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), thus making her a 

“prevailing party” entitled to EAJA fees. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 

301-02 (1993). “Courts have routinely awarded EAJA attorney's fees to claimants 

in Social Security cases who satisfy the statutory conditions.” Newsome, 8 F.3d at 

777. See also Myers, 916 F.2d at 666 (“Since the EAJA's enactment, the vast 

Case 2:14-cv-00400-N Document 26 Filed 08/31/15 Page 3 of 7
4

majority of EAJA awards have gone to claimants who succeeded in challenging 

contrary benefits decisions made by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.”).

C. “Substantially Justified”/Special Circumstances

“The government's position is substantially justified under the EAJA when it 

is justified to a degree that would satisfy a reasonable person—i.e. when it has a 

reasonable basis in both law and fact. The government bears the burden of showing 

that its position was substantially justified.” United States v. Jones, 125 F.3d 1418, 

1425 (11th Cir. 1997) (citations and quotations omitted).

The Commissioner has not attempted to show that her position was 

substantially justified, instead stating that she “does not oppose” the Plaintiff’s 

EAJA application and “agrees to pay Plaintiff $4,301.25 in attorney’s fees under the 

EAJA.” (Doc. 25 at 1). Given the Commissioner’s position, and there being 

apparent from the record no special circumstances which countenance against the 

awarding of fees, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of fees

under EAJA.

However, 

[t]he EAJA further provides:

The amount of fees awarded ... shall be based upon prevailing 

market rates, for the kind and quality of services furnished 

except that ...

(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.

Case 2:14-cv-00400-N Document 26 Filed 08/31/15 Page 4 of 7
5

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii) (emphasis added).

In Meyer v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 1029, 1033 (11th Cir. 1992), [this 

Circuit] recognized a two-step process for determining the appropriate 

hourly rate to be applied in calculating attorney's fees under the Act. 

First, the district court must “determine the market rate for ‘similar 

services [provided] by lawyers of reasonably comparable skills, 

experience, and reputation.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). “The second step, 

which is needed only if the market rate is greater than [$125] per hour, 

is to determine whether the court should adjust the hourly fee upward 

from [$125] to take into account an increase in the cost of living, or a 

special factor.” Id. at 1033-34.

Brungardt v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 234 F. App'x 889, 891 (11th Cir. 2007) (per 

curiam) (unpublished).

The Plaintiff requests an award of fees “based upon an hourly rate of $185.00 

per hour” for 23.25 hours of work on this case. (Doc. 23 at 1; Doc. 23-2). The 

Court finds the number of hours to be reasonable and finds this rate to be an 

appropriate market rate for similar services provided by lawyers of reasonably 

comparable skills, experience, and reputation.2 Moreover, the upward adjustment 

is justified under the formula from this Court’s decision in Lucy v. Astrue, which is 

often used to determine prevailing market rates for EAJA applications.

The prevailing market rate for social security cases in the Southern 

District of Alabama has been adjusted to take into account an increase 

in the cost of living. Lucy v. Astrue, CV 06–147–C, 2007 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 97094 (S.D. Ala. July 5, 2007). In Lucy, the following formula, 

based on the CPI, was utilized:

 2 “The court...is itself an expert on the question and may consider its own knowledge and 

experience concerning reasonable and proper fees and may form an independent judgment 

either with or without the aid of witnesses as to value.” Norman v. Hous. Auth. of City of 

Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted).

Case 2:14-cv-00400-N Document 26 Filed 08/31/15 Page 5 of 7
6

($125/hour) x (CPI–U[ 3 ] Annual Average “All Items Index,” 

South Urban, for month and year of temporal midpoint)/152.4, 

where 152.4 equals the CPI–U of March 1996, the month and 

year in which the $125 cap was enacted.

Id. at *12. The “temporal midpoint” is calculated by counting the 

number of days from the date that the claim was filed to the date of the 

Magistrate or District Judge's Order and Judgment. Id. at *5–6.

Winters v. Astrue, Civil Action No. 11-00261-CB-B, 2012 WL 1565953, at *2 (S.D. 

Ala. Apr. 9, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 1556652 (S.D. Ala. 

Apr. 30, 2012).

The Complaint in this action was filed on August 28, 2014, and the Court’s 

Order and Judgment were entered on May 13, 2015. The number of days between 

those two dates is 257; thus the “temporal midpoint” between those two dates falls in 

January 2015. The relevant CPI–U for January 2015 was 226.855. Plugging the 

relevant numbers into the foregoing formula renders the following equation: $125 x 

226.855 / 152.4. This calculation yields an hourly rate, adjusted for “cost of living” 

increases, of $186.07, which the Court finds to be an appropriate hourly rate under 

EAJA to take into account increases in cost of living.

Thus, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is due to be awarded $4,301.25, the 

full amount she requests in fees under EAJA.

II. Conclusion

In accordance with the foregoing analysis, it is ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s 

Application for Attorney Fees under EAJA (Doc. 23) is GRANTED and that the 

 3 Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, as determined by the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics of the United States Department of Labor (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables.htm).

Case 2:14-cv-00400-N Document 26 Filed 08/31/15 Page 6 of 7
7

Plaintiff is awarded from the Defendant Commissioner $4,301.25 in attorney’s fees.

DONE and ORDERED this the 31st day of August 2015.

/s/ Katherine P. Nelson

KATHERINE P. NELSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00400-N Document 26 Filed 08/31/15 Page 7 of 7