Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_04-cv-06077/USCOURTS-arwd-6_04-cv-06077-0/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)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

 The Equal Access to Justice Act (hereinafter the "EAJA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2412. 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

SHARON MOSBY PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-6077

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, Sharon Mosby, appealed to this Court from the denial of supplemental

security income benefits (hereinafter “SSI”), by the Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration (hereinafter "Commissioner"). On July 7, 2005, the undersigned remanded

this matter to the Commissioner, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. #10 & 11). 

Plaintiff's attorney, Terry Diggs, filed an Application For Attorney's Fees Under The

Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) , on August 5, 2005 (Doc. #12-14). The Commissioner 1

responded on August 31, 2005 (Doc. #15). 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 does not oppose the

award of a reasonable attorney's fee under the EAJA, does not object to the hourly rate

requested by plaintiff’s counsel and does not dispute the number of hours expended by

Case 6:04-cv-06077-BES Document 16 Filed 10/04/05 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

counsel. The Court construes this lack of opposition to the 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).

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

Case 6:04-cv-06077-BES Document 16 Filed 10/04/05 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

2412(d)(2)(A). Plaintiff’s attorney requests an award under the EAJA, at the rate of $125.00

per hour for the 11.4 hours which he asserts were devoted to the representation of plaintiff in

this Court. As previously noted, the Commissioner has raised no objection. We note that an

award based upon this hourly rate, reflecting an increase in the cost of living as set by

Congress, 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 $125.00 per

hour. 

Further, we have reviewed counsel’s itemization of time contained in his Affidavit

(Doc. #14). Defendant has not objected to the number of hours for which counsel seeks a

fee award, and we find the 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 under the EAJA for 11.4 hours. Counsel also seeks reimbursement for

expenses in the amount of $24.45, which the undersigned finds to be proper and reasonable. 

Accordingly, we find that counsel is entitled to compensation for 11.4 hours at the

rate of $125.00 per hour, and reimbursement for costs totaling $24.45,for a total attorney's

fee award of $1,449.45 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 3 day of October, 2005. rd

Case 6:04-cv-06077-BES Document 16 Filed 10/04/05 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

HONORABLE BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:04-cv-06077-BES Document 16 Filed 10/04/05 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>