Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05185/USCOURTS-arwd-5_06-cv-05185-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:0405g Review of HHS Decision (RSI)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Michael J. Astrue became the Social Security Commissioner on February 12, 2007. Pursuant to Rule 1

25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Michael J. Astrue has been substituted for Commissioner Jo

Anne B. Barnhart as the defendant in this suit.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

EDWARD MOUNT PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 06-5185

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE , Commissioner 1

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, Edward Mount, appealed the Commissioner's denial of benefits to this court.

On September 26, 2007, judgment was entered remanding plaintiff’s case to the Commissioner

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. # 17). Plaintiff now moves for an award

of $6182.96 in attorney's fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the Equal Access to Justice Act

(hereinafter "EAJA"), requesting compensation for 9.7 hours of attorney time performed in 2006

at an hourly rate of $160.00 per hour; 27.9 attorney hours for work performed in 2007 at an

hourly rate of $165.00; and, $27.46 in expenses. (Doc. # 18, Ex. 2). The defendant has filed

a response objecting to the hourly rate requested by plaintiff’s attorney. (Doc. # 20).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), 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 burden is on the Commissioner to show substantial justification for

the government's denial of benefits. Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127, 128 (8th Cir. 1986). After

Case 5:06-cv-05185-JLH Document 21 Filed 12/03/07 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

reviewing the file, we find plaintiff is a prevailing party in this matter. Under Shalala v.

Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302 (1993), a social security claimant who obtains a sentence-four

judgment reversing the Commissioner's denial of benefits and remanding the case for further

proceedings is a prevailing party. 

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 difficultyof 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,

Case 5:06-cv-05185-JLH Document 21 Filed 12/03/07 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

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

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.”).

The Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, passed on March 29, 1996,

amended the EAJA and increased the statutory ceiling for the EAJA fee awards from $75.00 to

$125.00 per hour. See 28 U.S.C. § 2 412(d)(2)(A). Plaintiff requests attorney's fees under the

EAJA at an hourly rate of $125.00. We find plaintiff's attorney entitled to compensation at this

rate. 

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 isinadequate, the court may reduce the award accordingly.

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

Case 5:06-cv-05185-JLH Document 21 Filed 12/03/07 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

4

Attorney's fees may not be awarded in excess of $125.00 per hour - the maximum

statutory rate under § 2412(d)(2)(A) - unless the court finds that an increase in the cost of living

or a special factor such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys justifies a higher fee. 28

U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). The decision to increase the hourly rate is not automatic and remains

at the discretion of the district court. McNulty v. Sullivan, 886 F.2d 1074 (8th Cir. 1989). In

Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503 (8th Cir. 1990), the court stated that the hourly rate may be

increased when there is “uncontested proof of an increase in the cost of living sufficient to justify

hourly attorney's fees of more than $75.00 an hour,” such as a copy of the Consumer Price Index.

Plaintiff's counsel has attached a summary of the Consumer Price Index as an exhibit and has

presented evidence of an increase in the cost of living. 

The Commissioner has raised an objection to the hourly rate requested. We agree that

the requested hourly rate is excessive and find 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.

We next address the number of hours plaintiff’s counsel claims he spent working on this

case. Plaintiff's counsel seeks reimbursement for a total of 4.00 hours of attorney work

performed between July 27, 2006, and September 27, 2006. The Complaint was not filed in this

court until September 29, 2006. (Doc. # 1). We note that time spent at the administrative level

is not compensable under the EAJA. See Cornella v. Schweiker, 728 F.2d 978, 988-89 (8th Cir.

1984). However, we do note that some of the time submitted was clearly in preparation for the

Case 5:06-cv-05185-JLH Document 21 Filed 12/03/07 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

We also note that, in addition to requesting compensation for time spent receiving electronic 2

verifications, counsel has also requested compensation for time spent reviewing the actual hard copy documents. 

This provides yet another reason to deny counsel’s request.

5

filing of the Complaint with this court and should be allowed. Therefore, we will deduct 2.00

hour. 

Counsel also requests reimbursement for .33 for issuing summons , .33 hour of time for

reviewing 3811 service forms, and .67 for receiving electronic verifications of various

documents. However, the court finds that these tasks could have been performed by support 2

staff. 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).

Therefore, these hours are not compensable under the EAJA. Therefore, 1.33 attorney hours

must be deducted from the total compensable time sought by counsel.

Counsel has also requested 4.00 hours for preparing her EAJA motion and 24.50 hours

for the preparation of plaintiff’s appeal brief. However, there were no unique or complex issues

to be developed in this particular case. Plaintiff’s counsel frequently represents social security

plaintiff’s before this court and should be well versed in social security law. Therefore, this court

concludes that it should not have taken an attorney experienced in handling social security cases

this amount of time to perform this task. Bowman v. Secretary of H.H.S., 744 F.Supp 898 (E.D.

Ark. 1989). Therefore we are deducting 12.50 hours from the total number of compensable

hours sought. 

Plaintiff’s counsel seeks a total of 0.75 hour on January 22, 2007 and January 24, 2007,

for preparing a motion to allow plaintiff to file a brief out of time and receiving and reviewing

the Order granting the above motion. Plaintiff’s counsel was given ample time to file a brief on

Case 5:06-cv-05185-JLH Document 21 Filed 12/03/07 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

6

behalf of her client and should not be allowed compensation for work performed as a result of

her inability to meet the deadlines set by this court. Accordingly, 0.75 hour must be deducted

from the total compensable time sought by counsel.

In addition, plaintiff’s counsel requests .50 hour on March 13, 2007, for preparing a

motion for an over length brief and receiving and reviewing the court’s order granting said

motion. While it is true that counsel did file this motion, we note that the page limitations set

by this court should have been adequate to allow counsel to address the issues in this case. As

such, we will deduct .50 hour from counsel’s total hours. 

Finally, counsel seeks reimbursement for $27.46 in expenses incurred with regard to the

postage. Such expenses are recoverable under the EAJA and we find $27.46 to be a reasonable

award. See Kelly v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 1333, 1335 (8th Cir. 1988).

Based on the above, we recommend awarding plaintiff's attorney fees under the EAJA

for: 20.52 (37.6-17.08) attorney hours, at the rate of $152.00 per hour, and $27.46 in expenses,

for a total attorney's fee award of $3146.50. This amount should be paid in addition to, and not

out of, any past due benefits which plaintiff may be awarded in the future. The parties have ten

days from receipt of our 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.

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.

Case 5:06-cv-05185-JLH Document 21 Filed 12/03/07 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

7

Dated this 3rd day of December 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:06-cv-05185-JLH Document 21 Filed 12/03/07 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: <pageID>