Source: http://oh.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180329_0000469.NOH.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 21:13:46+00:00

Document:
In opposing the motion, the Commissioner does not contend that plaintiff is not entitled to EAJA fees or object to the number of hours claimed by Oreh. Rather, the Commissioner argues that plaintiff has not satisfied her burden to show that she is entitled to attorney fees at an hourly rate of $196.50.
The EAJA requires the government to pay a prevailing social security plaintiff's reasonable attorney fees and costs “unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(A); see Howard v. Barnhart, 376 F.3d 551, 554 (6th Cir. 2004). There is no dispute here that plaintiff is a prevailing party under the EAJA, and the Commissioner does not contend that its position was substantially justified. See Hammock v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12-CV-250, 2015 WL 7292750, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 2015) (“A plaintiff who wins a remand of her social security appeal in this Court is a ‘prevailing party[.]'”), report and recommendation adopted sub nom Hammock v. Acting Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12-CV-250, 2015 WL 7276087 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 18, 2015).
The EAJA provides that the amount of an attorney fee award shall be based upon prevailing market rates for services similar in kind and quality, but shall not exceed $125.00 per hour, unless the Court determines that the cost of living or special factors justifies a higher fee. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). It is plaintiff's burden to provide appropriate evidence to support any requested increase over the statutory rate. Coursey v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 843 F.3d 1095, 1097 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing Bryant v. Commissioner of Social Security, 578 F.3d 443, 450 (6th Cir. 2009)).
In opposing the hourly rate requested by Morabito, the Commissioner argues that in the Sixth Circuit, the consumer price index (“CPI”) alone is insufficient to justify an increase in the statutory hourly rate of $125.00. (Resp. at 1166-67, citing Coursey v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 843 F.3d 1095, 1098 (6th Cir. 2016) and Clark v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 664 Fed.Appx. 525, 2016 WL 6958640 (6th Cir. Nov. 29, 2016).) Morabito did not reply or otherwise supplement the motion to address the arguments and case law raised by the Commissioner in opposing the hourly rate requested.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2412
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.