McCartney v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 20 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $2,878.23 for attorney's fees pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Signed by Honorable Mark E. Ford on November 25, 2019. (mjm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
DUSTIN MCCARTNEY
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 2:18-cv-2102-MEF
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner,
Social Security Administration
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. 20, 21). On October 19, 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 $2,878.23, representing a total of 14.75 attorney hours for work performed
in 2018 at an hourly rate of $180.90 and 1.15 attorney hours in 2019 at a rate of $182.57 per hour.
(ECF No. 20-1). On October 30, 2019, the Defendant filed a response voicing no objections to
Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 22).
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to a fee award in this case, as he
is the prevailing party, the government’s decision to deny benefits was not “substantially justified,”
the hourly rate requested 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 “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 the EAJA in the amount of $2,878.23.
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 $2,878.23 for attorney’s fees
pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
Dated this 25th day of November, 2019.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HONORABLE MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?