Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02152/USCOURTS-arwd-2_05-cv-02152-4/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)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

JAMIE HUGHES PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 05-2152

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

O R D E R 

Plaintiff, Jamie Hughes, appealed the Commissioner's denial of benefits to this court.

On September 19, 2006, judgment was entered remanding plaintiff's case to the Commissioner

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. # 10). Plaintiff now moves for an award

of $5444.40 in attorney's fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the Equal Access to Justice Act

(hereinafter "EAJA"), requesting compensation for 34.90 attorney hours for work before the

court at an hourly rate of $156.00 and $27.00 in out-of-pocket expenses. (Doc. # 11-1). The

defendant filed a response, expressing objections to this award. (Doc. # 13). Specifically, the

defendant contended that counsel failed to establish that the requested hourly rate of $156.00 per

hour is reasonable according to the Consumer Price Index, counsel requested time for tasks that

could have been performed by support staff, counsel sought time for reviewing the file in

conjunction with almost every time entry, and counsel requested reimbursement for attorney time

prior to the date the district court action was filed. (Doc. # 13). 

On February 14, 2007, this court entered an Order awarding plaintiff’s counsel $2427.00

in attorneys fees under EAJA. (Doc. # 15). Plaintiff counsel appealed that decision to the

Case 2:05-cv-02152-JRM Document 22 Filed 06/11/08 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and that court entered an order remanding

the case for reconsideration of the time counsel claims was spent working on the case prior to

the filing of the complaint. Thus, the sole issue before this court is whether counsel is entitled

to the 3.80 hours of alleged attorney hours for tasks performed between October 13, 2005, and

November 3, 2005, the date the Complaint was filed with this Court. Counsel has filed an

affidavit stating that the entire 3.80 hours of compensation requested during this time period is

for work performed in preparation for the filing of the complaint. (Doc. # 21). 

We note that counsel requests compensation for .90 hour for reviewing the file, .40 hour

for a telephone consultation with the plaintiff, and 1.10 hour for an office consultation with her

client. (Doc. # 11-2). As these tasks were clearly done in preparation for filing the complaint,

we believe counsel in entitled to compensation for this time.

Counsel also requests 1.00 hour for drafting/preparing the complaint, summonses, civil

cover sheet, and the correspondence to the clerk. (Doc. # 11-2). While we are cognizant of the

fact that counsel is required to sign both the complaint and the civil cover sheet, we note that the

actual preparation of these documents, including the summonses and letter, can be accomplished

via the use of a staff member. It is also significant to note that the Complaint used by counsel

is a 3 page standardized form. Therefore, we will allow .10 hour for counsel’s signature and

review of the complaint and cover sheet. See Granville House, Inc. v. Department of HEW, 813

F.2d 881, 884 (8th Cir. 1987) (work which could have been completed by support staff is not

compensable under the EAJA). 

Likewise, counsel requests .10 for the receipt/review of the NEF for the complaint; .10

for the receipt/review of the NEF for the issuance of summonses; .10 for the receipt/review of

Case 2:05-cv-02152-JRM Document 22 Filed 06/11/08 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

the NEF for the IFP application; and, .10 for the receipt/review of the NEF for the Order granting

IFP status. We note that the receipt/review of NEF’s is a function that can generally be assigned

to a staff member. (Doc. # 11-2). See id. However, because one of the NEF’s was of an Order

entered by this Court, counsel is entitled to .05 attorney hours for the review of this 1 page,

standard order. Accordingly, counsel will receive .05 attorney hours for the receipt/review of

this NEF. 

Therefore, we find that counsel is entitled to compensation for 2.55 of the 3.80 hours of

time requested for worked performed between October 13, 2005, and November 3, 2005. As the

remainder of our time allocations was upheld on appeal, those allocations will remain in effect.

A copy of the consumer price index was not submitted in support of counsel’s EAJA

petition filed with this court, but because it was submitted to the appellate court, we will accept

it as proof of the increase in the cost of living. However, we do not agree that counsel is entitled

to an hourly rate of $156.00 per hour. We believe that an award based upon an hourly rate of

$152.00 per hour, reflecting an increase in the cost of living, will result in consistent hourly fee

awards in cases in Arkansas. See Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 505 (8th Cir.1990). Thus,

based upon the above factors, we find that an appropriate hourly rate for the award of attorney's

fees in this case is $152.00 per hour. 

Accordingly, we find that counsel is entitled to compensation under the EAJA for: 19.75

(34.90-15.15) hours for attorney’s fees, at the rate of $152.00 per hour and $27.00 in out-ofpocket expenses for a total attorney’s fee award of $3029.00. This amount should be paid in

addition to, and not out of, any past due benefits which plaintiff may be awarded in the future.

Case 2:05-cv-02152-JRM Document 22 Filed 06/11/08 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

4

The parties are reminded that the award herein under the EAJA will be taken into account

at such time as a reasonable fee is determined pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406, in order to prevent

double recovery by counsel for the plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of June 2008.

/s/ J. Marschewski

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-02152-JRM Document 22 Filed 06/11/08 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>