Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_22-cv-05201/USCOURTS-arwd-5_22-cv-05201-2/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

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

JAMES W. DAVIS PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 5:22-05201-TLB-CDC

MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, Commissioner

Social Security Administration0F

1 DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, James W. Davis, appealed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits to this Court. 

On March 31, 2024, U.S. District Timothy L. Brooks sustained Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 

23) to the undersigned’s Report and Recommendation, and remanded Plaintiff’s case to the 

Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF Nos. 24, 25).

1. Background

On April 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion seeking an award of attorney fees in the amount 

of $8,077.75 under 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). (ECF No. 26). On 

May 14, 2024, a Joint Stipulation for Attorney’s Fees was filed, stipulating that Plaintiff should be 

awarded fees in the amount of $7,500.00. (ECF No. 29). The Motion was referred to the 

undersigned for Report and Recommendation. 

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 Commissioner’s position in denying benefits was 

substantially justified. The burden is on the Commissioner to show substantial justification for the 

1 Martin J. O’Malley has been appointed to serve as Commissioner of the Social Security 

Administration, and is substituted as Defendant, pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.

Case 5:22-cv-05201-TLB Document 30 Filed 05/23/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

government’s denial of benefits. Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127, 128 (8th Cir. 1986) (“The 

[Commissioner] bears the burden of proving that its position in the administrative and judicial 

proceeding below was substantially justified.”) An EAJA application 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 period for an 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, plaintiff’s attorney may be authorized to charge and 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. Barnhard, 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 “refund[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 purpose of the EAJA, which is to 

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

unreasonable government action. See id.; see also 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 U.S.C. § 

2412(d)(2)(A). A court is 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 

Case 5:22-cv-05201-TLB Document 30 Filed 05/23/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

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). Pursuant to General Order 391F

2

, which 

references the CPI- South Index, the Court has determined that enhanced hourly rates based on a 

cost-of-living increase is appropriate. 

3. Discussion 

In the present action, Plaintiff’s case was remanded to the Social Security Administration. 

(ECF No. 25). The Court first construes Defendant’s lack of objection concerning substantial 

justification and prevailing party status as an admission that the Government’s decision to deny 

benefits was not “substantially justified” and thus, Plaintiff is the prevailing party.

Hourly rates are authorized by the EAJA so long as the CPI-South Index justifies this 

enhanced rate. See General Order 39; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) and Johnson, 919 F.2d 

at 504. Here, the Court finds the CPI-South Index authorized an hourly rate of $221 during 2022, 

$236 during 2023 and $245 during 2024, and Defendant makes no objection to the rates claimed 

by Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff’s Motion seeks compensation for 2.75 hours of legal work during 2022; 27.50

hours during 2023; and 4.0 hours during 2024. The undersigned can infer – from the Stipulation 

for a $7,500 fee award – that Defendant objects to certain hours claimed by Plaintiff but the basis 

2 Per General Order 39, the allowable rate for each year is as follows, and for simplicity’s sake, 

the figure is rounded to the next dollar:

2022 – 269.263 x 125 divided by 152.4 (March 1996 CPI – South) = $220.85/hour ~ $221.

2023 – 288.205 x 125 divided by 152.4 (December 2022 CPI – South) = $236.39/hour ~ $236. 

2024 – 298.754 x 125 divided by 152.4 (December 2023 CPI – South) = $245.04 ~ $245.00.

Case 5:22-cv-05201-TLB Document 30 Filed 05/23/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
4

for those objections has not been articulated to the Court. Despite the parties’ Stipulation, the 

Court remains obligated under EAJA to determine whether the award is reasonable.2F

3 Blakeslee v. 

Social Security Administration, 2024 WL 2012496, *1 (E.D. Ark. April 25, 2024). 

Here, having carefully reviewed the itemizations of work performed, the Court finds an 

award of fees in the amount of $7,500.00 is justified by reasonable and necessary work performed 

and the results achieved. The undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees 

(ECF No. 26) be GRANTED, and Plaintiff awarded $7,500.00 in fees with this amount paid 

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

future. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010), the EAJA award must be awarded to 

the “prevailing party” or the litigant. However, if Plaintiff has executed a valid assignment to 

Plaintiff’s counsel 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 counsel. The parties are 

reminded that the EAJA award herein will be considered at such time as a reasonable fee is 

determined pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406, to prevent a double recovery by counsel for Plaintiff. 

The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the 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 

3 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b). See also Design & Prod., Inc. v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 145, 151–52 

(1990) (“The key words chosen by the Congress when enacting the EAJA are ‘a court shall’ and 

‘unless the court finds.’ These are clear words of direction from the Congress to the courts 

indicating that it is a court's responsibility to determine whether and at what level attorney's fees 

are appropriate in an EAJA case.... In accordance with the statutory terms, it is the court's 

responsibility to independently assess the appropriateness and measure of attorney's fees to be 

awarded in a particular case, whether an amount is offered as representing the agreement of the 

parties in the form of a proposed stipulation.”).

Case 5:22-cv-05201-TLB Document 30 Filed 05/23/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
5 

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

District Court. 

RECOMMENDED the 23rd day of May 2024. 

 ________________________________

CHRISTY COMSTOCK

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:22-cv-05201-TLB Document 30 Filed 05/23/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>