Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01865/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01865-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert W. Adis, Jr.
Plaintiff
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT W. ADIS, JR., No. CIV S-05-1865-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this action for judicial

review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (Doc. 29) pursuant to the Equal

Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Defendant has filed an opposition (Doc.

30), and plaintiff has filed a reply (Docs. 31 and 32). 

In his motion, plaintiff seeks an award of $6,333.17 in attorney’s fees to be

awarded directly to his counsel, Bess M. Brewer, Esq. This amount represents 1.75 hours at a

rate of $156.79 per hour, 34.45 hours at a rate of $161.85 per hour, and 2.95 hours at a rate of

$163.75 per hour. In opposition, defendant does not dispute that plaintiff was the prevailing

Case 2:05-cv-01865-CMK Document 33 Filed 01/11/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

party in this action, within the meaning of the EAJA. Defendant specifically concedes that

“Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable EAJA fees.” Rather, defendant contends that the hours

claimed are excessive and should be reduced by the court. Specifically, defendant argues that

counsel’s request does not include any “cost saving” due to counsel’s expertise in social security

appeals. 

A review of the record in this case reflects that plaintiff’s brief was 24 pages long

and raised five issues. The court concluded that the Administrative Law Judge had erred with

respect to: (1) plaintiff’s credibility; (2) analysis of the severity of plaintiff’s impairments in

combination; and (3) applicability of Listing 12.05. In this case, plaintiff’s counsel spent a total

of 39.15 hours on the case. Defendant contends that 24.4 hours is reasonable. 

The court has surveyed other social security appeals in which EAJA fees were

stipulated in order to determine whether the time claimed in this case is reasonable. In Murphy

v. Commissioner of Social Security, case no. CV-S-04-2389-CMK, plaintiff’s brief was 25 pages

and raised 4 issues. The parties stipulated to an EAJA award of $3,930.00. In Clark v.

Commissioner of Social Security, case no. CV-S-05-1001-CMK, plaintiff’s brief was 17 pages

long and raised 4 issues. The parties stipulated to an award of 2,774.00. In Johnson v.

Commissioner of Social Security, case no. CV-S-05-1359-CMK, plaintiff’s brief was 20 pages

long and raised 3 issues. The parties stipulated to a remand and an EAJA award of $4,546.43. In

Mallory v. Commissioner of Social Security, case no. CV-S-06-0247-CMK, plaintiff’s brief was

31 pages long and raised 3 issues. The parties stipulated to an award of $5,900.00. In Schrage v.

Commissioner of Social Security, case no. CV-S-06-0579-CMK, plaintiff’s brief was 20 pages

long and raised 4 issues. The parties stipulated to an award of 5,700.00. In Amant v.

Commissioner of Social Security, case no. CV-S-06-2695-CMK, plaintiff’s brief was 25 pages

long and raised 4 issues. The parties stipulated to a remand and an EAJA fees award of

$5,500.00. 

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-01865-CMK Document 33 Filed 01/11/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that the request for fees in this case

is not unreasonable. The court notes in particular that, on January 20, 2006, and August 1, 2006,

plaintiff’s counsel performed tasks for which she did not bill any time. Further, on September

18, 2006, counsel billed 8 hours for the following: “[t]horoughly reviewed, marked 500 plus

page record; reviewed 12.05 listing criteria.” At a rate of 60 pages per hour, document review

alone would have taken 8.33 hours. Therefore, plaintiff’s charge of 8 hours for documents

review in addition to reviewing the Listing 12.05 requirements represents a discount. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an award of

EAJA fees in the amount of $6,333.17 is granted.

DATED: January 10, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01865-CMK Document 33 Filed 01/11/08 Page 3 of 3