Gierke v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF ORDER on Attorney Fees in favor of Sherry G. Gierke against Social Security Administration Commissioner in the amount of $2612.30. This amount should be paid in addition to, and not out of, any past due benefits which plaintiff may be awarded in the future. Further, any EAJA award by this Court should be made payable to plaintiff but may be mailed to Plaintiff's counsel. Signed by Honorable James R. Marschewski on March 4, 2014. (sh) Modified on 3/4/2014 (sh).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
SHERRY GAIL GIERKE
CIVIL NO. 13-2014
CAROLYN W. COLVIN1, Commissioner
Social Security Administration
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending now before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal
Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). ECF No. 17. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of
a magistrate judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, and pursuant to said authority,
the Court issues this Order. ECF No. 5.
On January 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs under 28
U.S.C. § 2412, the Equal Access to Justice Act (hereinafter “EAJA”) requesting $2, 612.30
representing a total of 12.90 attorney hours for work performed in 2012 and 2013 at a rate of
$174.00 per hour and 4.90 paralegal hours at an hourly rate of $75.00. ECF No. 18-3. On
January 27, 2014, the Defendant filed a response voicing no objections to Plaintiff’s request for
fees. ECF No. 20.
It is the opinion of the undersigned that the Plaintiff is entitled to a fee award in this case,
as she is the prevailing party, the government’s decision to deny benefits was not “substantially
justified”, the hourly rate requested for both attorney and paralegal hours does not exceed the CPI
for either year in question, and the time asserted to have been spent in the representation of the
Carolyn W. Colvin became the Social Security Commissioner on February 14, 2013. Pursuant to Rule
25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin has been substituted for Commissioner
Michael J. Astrue as the defendant in this suit.
Plaintiff before the district court is reasonable. See Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127, 128 (8th
Cir. 1986) (burden is on the Commissioner to show substantial justification for the government’s
denial of benefits); Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503 (8th Cir. 1990) (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); and Allen v. Heckler, 588 F.Supp. 1247
(W.D.N.Y. 1984) (in determining reasonableness, court looks at 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). Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an attorney’s fee award
under EAJA in the amount of $2,612.30 .
Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2528 (2010), the EAJA fee award should
be made payable to Plaintiff. However, as a matter of practice, an EAJA fee made payable to
Plaintiff may properly be mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel.
The parties should be 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.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court awards Plaintiff $2,612.30 pursuant to the EAJA,
28 U.S.C. § 2412.
Dated this 3rd day of March 2014.
/s/ J. Marschewski
HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?