Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_05-cv-06055/USCOURTS-arwd-6_05-cv-06055-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

CINDY C. KILPATRICK PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-6055

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 20, 2005, Plaintiff, Cindy C. Kilpatrick, appealed to this Court from the denial

of her application for social security disability benefits, by the Commissioner of the Social

Security Administration (hereinafter "Commissioner") (Doc. #1). On August 10, 2006, the

undersigned remanded this matter to the Commissioner for further consideration (Doc. #6 & 7). 

Plaintiff's attorney, Charles R. Padgham, filed a Petition For Attorney’s Fees pursuant

to the EAJA (the Equal Access to Justice Act, hereinafter the "EAJA"), on October 10, 2006

(Doc. #8 & 9). On October 10, 2006, Mr. Padgham filed an amended Petition for Attorney's

Fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. #10). The Commissioner filed her response on October 12,

2006 (Doc. #11). Therefore, this matter is now ready for consideration. 

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) provides that the Court must award attorney's fees to a

prevailing social security claimant unless the Commissioner's position in denying benefits was

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

was substantially justified. Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127, 128 (8th Cir.1986).

Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this matter. The Commissioner fails to oppose the

award of a reasonable attorney fee, the number of hours sought, or the hourly rate sought by

plaintiff’s counsel (Doc. #11). The Court construes the Commissioner’s failure to object to the

Case 6:05-cv-06055-BES Document 12 Filed 01/24/07 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

award of a reasonable fee, as an admission that the government's decision to deny benefits was

not "substantially justified." 

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. 

Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796, 122 S.Ct. 1817, 1822, 152 L.Ed.2d 996 (2002), citing

Pub.L. 99-80, § 3, 99 Stat. 186 (1985). 

To permit a fee award under the EAJA, assuming, of course, that the necessary

standard is met, in addition to that allowed by the district court out of a

claimant’s past-due benefits does no more than reimburse the claimant for his or

her expenses and results in no windfall for the attorney.

Meyers v. Heckler, 625 F.Supp. 228, 231 (S.D.Ohio 1985). 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 unreasonable government

action. Id. See also, Cornella v. Schweiker, 728 F.2d 978 (8th Cir.1984).

In determining a reasonable attorney's fee, the Court will in each case consider the

following factors: 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. Allen

v. Heckler, 588 F.Supp. 1247 (W.D.N.Y. 1984). 

However, the EAJA is not designed to reimburse without limit. Pierce v. Underwood,

487 U.S. 552, 573 (1988). The district court is "in the best position to evaluate counsel’s

Case 6:05-cv-06055-BES Document 12 Filed 01/24/07 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

services and fee request, particularly when the court has had the opportunity to observe

firsthand counsel’s representation on the substantive aspects of the disability claim." Hickey v.

Secretary of HHS, 923 F.2d 585, 586 (8th Cir.1991), quoting Cotter v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 359,

361 (8th Cir.1989). The court can determine the reasonableness and accuracy of a fee request,

even in the absence of an objection by the Commissioner. See Decker v. Sullivan, 976 F.2d

456, 459 (8th Cir.1992) ("Although the issue was not raised on appeal, fairness to the parties

requires an accurately calculated attorney’s fee award.").

Despite plaintiff's counsel's assertion in his amended petition (Doc. #10), the statutory

ceiling for EAJA fee awards is $125.00 per hour. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). The

EAJA further requires an attorney seeking fees to submit "an itemized statement...stating the

actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other expenses were computed." 28 U.S.C.

§ 2412(d)(1)(B). Attorneys seeking fees under federal fee-shifting statutes such as the EAJA are

required to present fee applications with "contemporaneous time records of hours worked and

rates claimed, plus a detailed description of the subject matter of the work." Id. Where

documentation is inadequate, the court may reduce the award accordingly. Hensley v.

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). 

Plaintiff's attorney requests an award under the EAJA at the rate of $144.00 per hour, for

the 14.25 hours which he asserts he devoted to the representation of plaintiff in this Court. 

Plaintiff’s counsel seeks $144.00 per hour based upon an increase in the cost of living (Doc. #

8-10). 

The party seeking attorney fees bears the burden of proving that the claimed fees are

reasonable. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. at 437. 

Case 6:05-cv-06055-BES Document 12 Filed 01/24/07 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

28 U.S.C.A. § 2412(d)(2)(A) provides:

“fees and other expenses” includes....reasonable attorney fees (The amount of

fees awarded under this subsection shall be based upon prevailing market rates

for the kind and quality of the 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.)

Plaintiff’s counsel produced evidence of an increased cost of living, by attaching two

letters from the Office of General Counsel for Region VI of the Social Security Administration,

each of which confirm the increased cost of living and increased hourly rate, to his EAJA

pleadings. Therefore, his argument for attorney fees in the amount of $144.00 per hour has

merit. 

We further conclude that awarding a fee in the amount of $144.00 per hour, in light of

the evidence of an increased cost of living and the specific request of counsel, would promote

consistency in the EAJA awards in the judicial districts of Arkansas. See Johnson v. Sullivan,

919 F.2d 503, 505 (8th Cir.1990). Thus, upon consideration of the above factors, we find that

an appropriate hourly rate for the award of attorney's fees in this case is $144.00 per hour. 

Further, as has been noted, the defendant does not object to the number of hours for

which counsel seeks a fee award. Nonetheless, as always, we have carefully reviewed the time

records submitted in plaintiff’s counsel’s itemization, which asserts a total of 14.25 hours spent

in representation of Plaintiff in this case (Doc. #8 & 10, pp. 3-4). 

Counsel seeks compensation for: 0.25 hours on June 24, 2005 (receipt/review of action

of appeals council on request for review, denying review of unfavorable decision of ALJ); and,

0.25 hours on June 25, 2005 (conf. w/ client in regard to filing litigation in federal court) (Doc.#

Case 6:05-cv-06055-BES Document 12 Filed 01/24/07 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

 On January 22, 2007, an order was filed of record in the District Court for the 1

Western District of Arkansas, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 291(b), authorizing Circuit Judge

Bobby E. Shepherd to "hold a district court in the Western District of Arkansas . . . during the

-5-

8 & 10, p. 3). However, plaintiff’s district court case was not filed until July 20, 2005 (Doc.

#1). Plaintiff’s counsel did not begin work on preparation of the complaint until July 20, 2005

(Doc. #8 & 10, p. 3). Thus, we find that counsel is not entitled to compensation for this time, as

it was not performed in representation of the plaintiff in the district court. See Cornella v.

Schweiker, 728 F.2d 978, 988 (8th Cir.1984); see also, Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292

(1993); Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877 (1989) (An attorney is entitled to EAJA fees for

services rendered at the district court level). Accordingly, the 0.50 hours, alleged for services

not performed before the District Court, must be deducted from the total compensable time

sought by counsel. 

We find the remainder of time asserted to be spent in representation of the plaintiff

before the district court, to be reasonable. 

Thus, we find that plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to compensation for 13.75 hours spent

in the representation of this plaintiff before the district court. at the rate of $144.00 per hour, for

a total attorney's fee award of $1,980.00 under the EAJA.

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 24th day of January, 2007.

 /s/Bobby E. Shepherd 

 Bobby E. Shepherd 

 United States Circuit Judge1

Case 6:05-cv-06055-BES Document 12 Filed 01/24/07 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

period beginning January 1, 2007, and ending December 31, 2007 . . ."

-6-

Case 6:05-cv-06055-BES Document 12 Filed 01/24/07 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>