Morris et al v.Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $6,330.80 for attorney's fees pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on July 29, 2019. (lw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
STACEY MORRIS for
MICHAEL B. MORRIS, Deceased
v.
CIVIL NO. 2:18-CV-2068
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner,
Social Security Administration 1
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANT
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 Nos. 19, 20).
On April 7, 2019, 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 $6,330.80, representing a
total of 32.3 attorney hours for work performed in 2018 and 2019 at an hourly rate of $196.00.
(ECF No. 19-1). On June 28, 2019, the Defendant filed a response voicing no objections to
Plaintiff’s request for fees. (ECF No. 21).
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 attorney hours does not exceed the CPI for either year in
question, and the time asserted to have been spent in the representation of the 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
1
Andrew M. Saul Error! Main Document Only.became the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
on June 17, 2019, and he is substituted as Defendant in this action pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
“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 $6,330.80.
Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 596 (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 are reminded that, in order to prevent double recovery by counsel for the
Plaintiff, 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.
IV.
Conclusion:
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $6,330.80 for attorney’s fees
pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
Dated this 29th day of July, 2019.
/s/ P. K. Holmes, III
P. K. HOLMES, III
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?