Lansdell v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
ORDER granting 15 MOTION for Attorney Fees per EAJA filed by Kenneth Lansdell; Fees in the amount of $3007.10 awarded. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on May 17, 2013. (cnn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Civil No. 4:12-cv-04106
CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Pending now before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal
Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). ECF No. 15. Defendant has responded to this Motion and only
objects to Plaintiff’s requested hourly rate for 2012. ECF No. 16. The Parties have consented to the
jurisdiction of a magistrate judge to conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including
conducting the trial, ordering the entry of a final judgment, and conducting all post-judgment
proceedings. ECF No. 5. Pursuant to this authority, the Court issues this Order.
Kenneth Lansdell (“Plaintiff”) appealed to this Court from the Secretary of the Social
Security Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of his request for disability benefits. ECF No. 1. On May
3, 2013, Plaintiff’s case was reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
ECF Nos. 15-16.
On May 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed the present Motion requesting an award of attorney’s fees
under EAJA. ECF No. 15. With this Motion, Plaintiff requests an award of attorney’s fees of
$3,013.35. Id. This amount represents 16.7 hours during 2012 and 2013 at an hourly rate of
$180.44. Id. Defendant responded to this Motion on May 16, 2013. ECF No. 16. In this response,
Defendant objects to the hourly rate Plaintiff requested for 2012. Id.
Pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), a court must award attorney's fees to a
prevailing social security claimant unless the Secretary’s position in denying benefits was
substantially justified. The Secretary has the burden of proving that the denial of benefits was
substantially justified. See Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127, 128 (8th Cir.1986) (“The Secretary
bears the burden of proving that its position in the administrative and judicial proceedings below was
substantially justified”). An EAJA application also must be made within thirty days of a final
judgment in an action, See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B), or within thirty days after the sixty day time
for appeal has expired. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 298 (1993).
An award of attorney’s fees under the EAJA is appropriate even though, at the conclusion
of the case, the plaintiff’s attorney may be authorized to charge and to collect a fee pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). Recovery of attorney’s fees under both the EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) was
specifically allowed when Congress amended the EAJA in 1985. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535
U.S. 789, 796 (2002) (citing Pub. L. No. 99-80, 99 Stat. 186 (1985)). The United States Supreme
Court stated that Congress harmonized an award of attorney’s fees under the EAJA and under 42
U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) as follows:
Fee awards may be made under both prescriptions [EAJA and 42 U.S.C. §
406(b)(1)], but the claimant’s attorney must “refun[d] to the claimant the amount of
the smaller fee.”. . .“Thus, an EAJA award offsets an award under Section 406(b),
so that the [amount of total past-due benefits the claimant actually receives] will be
increased by the . . . EAJA award up to the point the claimant receives 100 percent
of the past-due benefits.”
Id. Furthermore, awarding fees under both acts facilitates the purposes of the EAJA, which is to
shift to the United States the prevailing party’s litigation expenses incurred while contesting
unreasonable government action. See id.; Cornella v. Schweiker, 728 F.2d 978, 986 (8th Cir. 1984).
The statutory ceiling for an EAJA fee award is $125.00 per hour. See 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d)(2)(A). A court is only authorized to exceed this statutory rate if “the court determines that
an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified
attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.” Id. A 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”). See Johnson
v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 504 (8th Cir. 1990). See also General Order 39 (“Attorney’s Fees Under
the Equal Access to Justice Act”).
In the present action, Plaintiff’s case was remanded to the SSA. ECF Nos. 13-14. Defendant
does not contest Plaintiff’s claim that he is the prevailing party and does not oppose his application
for fees under the EAJA. ECF No. 16. The Court construes the lack of opposition to this application
as an admission that the government’s decision to deny benefits was not “substantially justified” and
that Plaintiff is the prevailing party.
Plaintiff requests a total award of $3,013.35. ECF No. 15. This amount represents 16.7
hours during 2012 and 2013 at an hourly rate of $180.44. Id. Defendant claims the rate for 2012
is excessive. ECF No. 16. This requested hourly rate is authorized by the EAJA as long as the CPISouth Index justifies this enhanced rate. See General Order 39. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A);
Johnson, 919 F.2d at 504. In the present action, Plaintiff has requested $180.44 per hour for work
performed in 2012. ECF No. 15. Based upon the CPI-South Index, this hourly rate for 2012 is not
authorized, and Plaintiff may only receive $180.00 for work performed in 2012. However,
Plaintiff’s requested hourly rate of $180.44 for 2013 is authorized by the CPI-South Index.
Further, Plaintiff has requested 16.7 hours for attorney work performed in 2012 and 2013.
ECF No. 15. This amount totals 14.2 hours during 2012 and 2.5 hours during 2013. Id. Plaintiff
has submitted an itemized bill in support of this request. Id. Defendant has raised no objections to
this request. ECF No. 16. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s itemized bill, the Court finds it is reasonable
and should be granted.
Defendant claims the fees awarded should be paid directly to Plaintiff pursuant to Ratliff.
ECF No. 16. Ratliff requires that attorney’s fees be awarded to the “prevailing party” or the litigant.
See Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2528 (2010). Thus, these fees must be awarded to Plaintiff,
not to Plaintiff’s attorney. However, if Plaintiff has executed a valid assignment to Plaintiff’s
attorney of all rights in an attorney’s fee award and Plaintiff owes no outstanding debt to the federal
government, the attorney’s fee may be awarded directly to Plaintiff’s attorney.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court awards Plaintiff $3,007.10 in attorney’s fees pursuant
to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. This amount includes 14.2 hours at an hourly rate of $180.00 (2012)
and 2.5 hours at an hourly rate of $180.44 (2013).
ENTERED this 17th day of May 2013.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. 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?