Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_23-cv-03038/USCOURTS-arwd-3_23-cv-03038-0/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)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

HARRISON DIVISION 

MICHELLE LEAHY PLAINTIFF 

 v. Civil No. 3:23-cv-03038-MEF 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, 

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

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

Access to Justice Act. (ECF Nos. 19, 20). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a 

Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this case, and pursuant to said authority, the Court 

issues this Order. (ECF No. 5). 

 On January 2, 2025, 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 $5,306.25, representing 

a total of 21.00 attorney hours for work performed in 2024 at an hourly rate of $245.00 and 2.15 

paralegal hours at an hourly rate of $75.00. (ECF No. 20-12). On January 3, 2025, the Defendant 

filed a response voicing no objections. (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 paralegal and attorney hours does not exceed the CPI for 

either year 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); 

Case 3:23-cv-03038-MEF Document 22 Filed 01/13/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>
2 

Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 504-505 (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”)); and, 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). Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an attorney’s fee 

award under EAJA in the amount of $5,306.25. 

 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 $5,306.25 for attorney’s fees 

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

 Dated this 13th day of January 2025. 

 /s/ Mark E. Ford

 HONORABLE MARK E. FORD 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:23-cv-03038-MEF Document 22 Filed 01/13/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>