Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_23-cv-06039/USCOURTS-arwd-6_23-cv-06039-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405g Review of HHS Decision (RSI)

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

 

MELISSA HALL PLAINTIFF

 

vs. Civil No. 6:23-cv-06039 

 

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the 

Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). ECF No. 15. Defendant has responded to this Motion and 

has no objections. ECF No. 18. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2009), the Honorable Susan 

O. Hickey referred this Motion to the Court for the purpose of making a report and 

recommendation. In accordance with that referral, this Court enters the following report and 

recommendation. 

1. Background:

Melissa Hall (“Plaintiff”) appealed to this Court from the Secretary of the Social Security 

Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of her request for disability benefits. ECF No. 1. On February

2, 2024, Plaintiff’s case was reversed and remanded pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 

405(g). ECF No. 14. 

On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed the present Motion requesting an award of attorney’s fees 

under the EAJA. ECF No. 15. With this Motion, Plaintiff requests an award of attorney’s fees 

and costs in the total amount of $6,715.30.0F

1

 Id. This amount includes 27.40 attorney hours at an 

1 Plaintiff made a math error in calculating fees. The amount of requested attorney’s fees should be $7,421.90 which 

represents 27.40 attorney hours at an hourly rate of $236.00 for work performed in 2023 and 3.90 attorney hours at 

an hourly rate of $245.00 for work performed in 2024.

Case 6:23-cv-06039-SOH Document 20 Filed 04/12/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>
2 

hourly rate of $236.00 for work performed in 2023 and 3.90 attorney hours at an hourly rate of 

$245.00 for work performed in 2024. Id. Defendant responded to this Motion and had no 

objections. ECF No. 18. 

2. Applicable Law: 

Pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), a court must award attorney's fees to a 

prevailing social security claimant unless the Secretary’s position in denying benefits was 

substantially justified. The Secretary has the burden of proving that the denial of benefits was 

substantially justified. See Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127, 128 (8th Cir.1986) (“The Secretary 

bears the burden of proving that its position in the administrative and judicial proceedings below 

was substantially justified”). An EAJA application also must be made within thirty days of a final 

judgment in an action, See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B), or within thirty days after the sixty day time 

for appeal has expired. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 298 (1993). 

An award of attorney’s fees under the EAJA is appropriate even though, at the conclusion 

of the case, the plaintiff’s attorney may be authorized to charge and to collect a fee pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). Recovery of attorney’s fees under both the EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) 

was specifically allowed when Congress amended the EAJA in 1985. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,

535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002) (citing Pub. L. No. 99-80, 99 Stat. 186 (1985)). The United States 

Supreme Court stated that Congress harmonized an award of attorney’s fees under the EAJA and 

under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) as follows: 

Fee awards may be made under both prescriptions [EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 

406(b)(1)], but the claimant’s attorney must “refun[d] to the claimant the amount 

of the smaller fee.”. . .“Thus, an EAJA award offsets an award under Section 

406(b), so that the [amount of total past-due benefits the claimant actually receives] 

will be increased by the . . . EAJA award up to the point the claimant receives 100 

percent of the past-due benefits.” 

Id. Furthermore, awarding fees under both acts facilitates the purposes of the EAJA, which is to 

shift to the United States the prevailing party’s litigation expenses incurred while contesting 

Case 6:23-cv-06039-SOH Document 20 Filed 04/12/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>
3 

unreasonable government action. See id.; Cornella v. Schweiker, 728 F.2d 978, 986 (8th Cir. 

1984). 

The statutory ceiling for an EAJA fee award is $125.00 per hour. See 28 U.S.C. § 

2412(d)(2)(A). A court is only authorized to exceed this statutory rate if “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.” Id. A 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”). See 

Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 504 (8th Cir. 1990). See also General Order 39 (“Attorney’s 

Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act”). 

3. Discussion:

In the present action, Plaintiff’s case was remanded to the SSA. ECF No. 14. Defendant 

does not contest Plaintiff’s claim that she is the prevailing party and does not oppose her

application for fees under the EAJA. ECF No. 18. The Court construes the lack of opposition to 

this application as an admission that the government’s decision to deny benefits was not 

“substantially justified” and that Plaintiff is the prevailing party. 

Plaintiff requests a total award of $6,715.30. ECF No. 21. This amount includes 27.40 

attorney hours at an hourly rate of $236.00 for work performed in 2023 and 3.90 attorney hours at 

an hourly rate of $245.00 for work performed in 2024. Id. These requested hourly rates for 

attorney work are authorized by the EAJA as long as the CPI-South Index justifies these enhanced 

rates. See General Order 39. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A); Johnson, 919 F.2d at 504. In 

the present action, the Court authorizes $236.00 as an hourly rate for work performed in 2023 and 

$245.00 as an hourly rate for work performed in 2024. Thus, the Court recommends those amounts 

be awarded. 

Case 6:23-cv-06039-SOH Document 20 Filed 04/12/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>
4 

Further, I have reviewed counsel’s itemization of time appended to Plaintiff’s application. 

ECF No. 17. This Court notes that Defendant has not objected to the number of hours for which 

counsel seeks a fee award, and this Court finds the time asserted to be spent in the representation 

of Plaintiff before the district court is reasonable.

Defendant claims the fees awarded should be paid directly to Plaintiff pursuant to Astrue

v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). ECF No. 18. Ratliff requires that attorney’s fees

be awarded to the “prevailing party” or the litigant. See id. 130 S.Ct. at 2528. Thus, these fees 

must be awarded to Plaintiff, not to Plaintiff’s attorney. However, if Plaintiff has executed a valid

assignment to Plaintiff’s attorney of all rights in an attorney’s fee award and Plaintiff owes no 

outstanding debt to the federal government, the attorney’s fee may be awarded directly to

Plaintiff’s attorney. 

4. Conclusion:

Based upon the foregoing, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees 

(ECF No. 15) be GRANTED, and Plaintiff be awarded $7,421.90. This amount represents 27.40 

attorney hours at an hourly rate of $236.00 for work performed in 2023 and 3.90 attorney hours at 

an hourly rate of $245.00 for work performed in 2024. 

The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this 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. The Parties are 

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

district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990). 

ENTERED this 12th day of April 2024. 

 /s/ Barry A. Bryant 

 HON. BARRY A. BRYANT

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 6:23-cv-06039-SOH Document 20 Filed 04/12/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:

<pageID>