Lott v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 15 Motion on Attorney Fees in favor of Dennis A. Lott against Social Security Administration Commissioner in the amount of $4,340.70. 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 and not counsel. Signed by Honorable Mark E. Ford on August 31, 2016. (src)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
DENNIS A. LOTT
CIVIL NO. 3:14-cv-3099-MEF
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 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. 14, 15. 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 April 29, 2016, 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 $4,340.70 representing a
total of 23.30 attorney hours for work performed in 2014, 2015, and 2016 at an hourly rate of
$186.00 and $6.90 in expenses. ECF No. 15-4. On May 12, 2016, the Defendant filed a response
voicing no objections to Plaintiff’s request for fees. ECF No. 16.
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 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 EAJA in the amount
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 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.
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $4,340.70 for attorney’s fees
pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
Dated this 31st day of August, 2016.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HONORABLE MARK E. FORD
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?