Dunn v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 19 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $5,310.20 for attorney's fees pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Signed by Honorable Mark E. Ford on August 1, 2022. (mjm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
ROGER D. DUNN
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL NO. 2:21-cv-02103-PKH-MEF

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting 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. (ECF Nos. 19, 20). On June 10, 2022, 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 $5,310.20, representing a total of 20.95 attorney hours in 2021 at an hourly rate of
$206.00 and 4.50 attorney hours in 2022 at a rate of $221.00 per hour. (ECF No. 19-1). On June
14, 2022, the Commissioner filed a response voicing no objections. (ECF No. 21).
I.

Discussion

It is the opinion of the undersigned 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 for attorney hours does not exceed the CPI for the years 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); 28
U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) (statutory ceiling for an EAJA fee award is $125.00 per hour); Johnson v.
Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 505 (8th Cir. 1990) (court may determine that there has been an increase
in the cost of living, and may thereby increase the attorney’s rate per hour, based upon the United
States Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index (“CPI”)); and, Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S.
1 

424, 430 (1983) (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, the undersigned finds that the Plaintiff is
entitled to an attorney’s fee award under EAJA in the amount of $5,310.20.
Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 596 (2010), the EAJA fee award should be
made payable to Plaintiff. As a matter of practice, however, an EAJA fee made payable to Plaintiff
may properly be mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel.
The parties are reminded that, to prevent double recovery by counsel for the Plaintiff, the
award herein under the EAJA will be considered at such time as a reasonable fee is determined
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406.
II.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $5,310.20 for attorney’s fees pursuant to the
EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
Dated this 1st day of August 2022.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2