Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05108/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05108-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

BOBBY DANIEL PLAINTIFF

 v. CIVIL NO. 5:24-05108-TLB-CDC

CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting Commissioner

Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff, Bobby Daniel, appealed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits to this Court. On 

September 5, 2024, U.S. District Timothy L. Brooks adopted the undersigned’s Report and 

Recommendation, granting the unopposed remand of Plaintiff’s case to the Commissioner 

pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 16).

1. Background 

On December 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion seeking an award of attorney’s fees in the 

amount of $6,087.00 under 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the Equal Access to Justice Act (hereinafter 

“EAJA”) as well as recovery of the $405 filing fee. (ECF No. 17). Defendant responded, offering 

no objection, on December 4, 2024. (ECF No. 19). The Motion was referred to the undersigned 

for 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 

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 

Case 5:24-cv-05108-TLB Document 20 Filed 12/09/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

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 

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

Case 5:24-cv-05108-TLB Document 20 Filed 12/09/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 504 (8th Cir. 1990). Pursuant to General Order 390F

1

, 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

on the unopposed motion of Defendant. (ECF No. 16). 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.

Defendant does not object to the hourly rates claimed by Plaintiff. 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. The Court finds the 

CPI-South Index authorized an hourly rate of $245 during 2024 and the undersigned will employ

this hourly rate when calculating Plaintiff’s fees. Plaintiff also seeks recovery of fees for work 

performed by a paralegal at the hourly rate of $75 which is the rate customarily awarded for 

paralegal work in this District. 

Plaintiff seeks compensation for 24.6 hours of attorney legal work during 2024 at $245 per

hour plus 0.80 hours of paralegal work at $75 per hour. Defendant does not object to these hours. 

After independent review of Plaintiff’s itemized submissions, the Court finds counsel’s claimed 

1 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:

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

Case 5:24-cv-05108-TLB Document 20 Filed 12/09/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
4

time was both reasonable and necessary. The undersigned recommends Plaintiff be awarded 

attorney’s fees for 24.6 hours of attorney work during 2024 at an hourly rate of $245, and 0.80

hours of paralegal work at a rate of $75 hour. 

Plaintiff is also entitled to recover the filing fee of $405 which is not paid as an expense 

under EAJA but instead should be paid from the Judgment Fund administered by the U.S. 

Treasury. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a). The Court will award the filing fee as costs. 28 U.S.C. §1920.

The undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees (ECF No. 17) be

GRANTED, and Plaintiff awarded $6,087 in legal fees and $405 in costs for a total award of 

$6,492.00. 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 

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

District Court. 

Case 5:24-cv-05108-TLB Document 20 Filed 12/09/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>
5 

RECOMMENDED this 9th day of December 2024. 

 

 ________________________________

CHRISTY COMSTOCK

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:24-cv-05108-TLB Document 20 Filed 12/09/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:

<pageID>