Killian v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
JUDGMENT on Attorney Fees in favor of Michael Edward Killian against Social Security Administration Commissioner in the amount of $1,837.26. 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 Erin L. Setser on February 14, 2013. (tg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Plaintiff, Michael Killian, appealed the Commissioner’s denial of benefits to this Court.
On June 14, 2012, a Judgment was entered remanding this matter to the Commissioner pursuant
to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g). (Doc. 12). Plaintiff now moves for an award of $1,961.31
in attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the Equal Access to Justice Act (hereinafter “EAJA”),
requesting compensation for 10.95 attorney hours of work performed before the Court in 2011,
at an hourly rate of $165.41, and .9 attorney hours of work performed before the Court in 2012,
at an hourly rate of $166.75. (Doc. 10-2). Defendant has filed a response, stating that he does
not oppose the requested hourly rate sought, but does object to some of the time Plaintiff’s
counsel is requesting, stating that it is essentially clerical work. (Doc.12).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), the Court must award attorney's fees to a
prevailing social security claimant unless the Commissioner's position in denying benefits was
substantially justified. The burden is on the Commissioner to show substantial justification for
the government's denial of benefits. Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127, 128 (8th Cir. 1986).
Under Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302 (1993), a social security claimant who obtains a
sentence-four judgment reversing the Commissioner's denial of benefits and remanding the case
for further proceedings is a prevailing party.
In determining a reasonable attorney’s fee, the Court will in each case consider the
following factors: time and labor required; the novelty and difficulty of questions involved; the
skill required to handle the problems presented; the preclusion of employment by the attorney
due to acceptance of the case; the customary fee; whether the fee is fixed or contingent; time
limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; the amount involved and the results
obtained; the attorney’s experience, reputation and ability; the “undesirability” of the case; the
nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and awards in similar cases.
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 430 (1983).
However, the EAJA is not designed to reimburse without limit. Pierce v. Underwood,
487 U.S. 552, 573 (1988). The Court can determine the reasonableness and accuracy of a fee
request, even in the absence of an objection by the Commissioner. Clements v. Astrue, 2009 WL
4508480 (W.D. Ark. Dec. 1, 2009); see also Decker v. Sullivan, 976 F.2d 456, 459 (8th Cir.
1992) (“Although the issue was not raised on appeal, fairness to the parties requires an accurately
calculated attorney’s fee award.”).
The EAJA further requires an attorney seeking fees to submit “an itemized
statement...stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other expenses were
computed.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). Attorneys seeking fees under federal fee-shifting
statutes such as the EAJA are required to present fee applications with “contemporaneous time
records of hours worked and rates claimed, plus a detailed description of the subject matter of
Where documentation is inadequate, the Court may reduce the award
accordingly. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433 (1983).
Plaintiff's attorney requests an award under the EAJA at an hourly rate of $165.41 for
10.95 hours in 2011, and $166.75 for .9 hours in 2012, which he asserts were devoted to the
representation of Plaintiff in this Court. The party seeking attorney fees bears the burden of
proving that the claimed fees are reasonable. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. Attorney fees may not
be awarded in excess of $125.00 per hour - the maximum statutory rate under §2412(d)(2)(A) unless the court finds that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor such as the limited
availability of qualified attorneys justifies a higher fee. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). In Johnson
v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503 (8th Cir. 1990), the Court stated that 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 [the maximum statutory hourly rate],” such as a copy of the
Consumer Price Index (CPI). Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a CPI-Urban in support of his
requested hourly rate. Amended General Order 39 provides that the CPI-South index is to be
used in computing cost of living increases. The Court finds that the CPI -South index supports
an award based upon an hourly rate of $165.41 for 2011, and $166.75 for 2012.1 See Johnson,
919 F.2d at 505.
The Court will next address the number of hours Plaintiff’s counsel has alleged he spent
in this matter.
Plaintiff’s counsel seeks .5 hours for “Service Letters to Defendants” and .25 hours for
“Affidavit of Completion of Service.” The Court agrees with Defendant that these tasks are
Per Amended General Order 39, the allowable rate for each year is as follows, and for simplicity sake, the figure
is rounded to the nearest dollar:
2010 - 211.338 x 125 divided by 152.4 (March 1996 CPI-South)= $173.34/hour - $173.00
2011 - 212.488 x 125 divided by 152.4 (March 1996 CPI-South)= $174.28/hour - $174.00
2012 - 219.469 x 125 divided by 152.4 (March 1996 CPI-South)= $180.01 hour - $180.00
clerical in nature and cannot be compensated under the EAJA. Granville House, Inc. v.
Department of HEW, 813 F.2d 881, 884 (8th Cir.1987) (work which could have been completed
by support staff is not compensable under the EAJA). The Court will therefore deduct .75
In his response, Defendant asks the Court to designate Plaintiff as payee of the EAJA
award, and not Plaintiff’s counsel. Based upon the holding in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521
(2010), the EAJA award should be paid directly to Plaintiff.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff ‘s counsel should be awarded an
attorney’s fee under the EAJA for: 10.2 attorney hours in 2011 (10.95 hours less .75 hours) at
an hourly rate of $165.41 and .90 attorney hours in 2012 at an hourly rate of $166.75, for a total
attorney’s fee award of $1,837.26. This amount should be paid in addition to, and not out of, any
past due benefits which Plaintiff may be awarded in the future.
The parties are reminded that 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, in order to prevent
double recovery by counsel for the Plaintiff.
DATED this 14th day of February, 2013.
/s/ Erin L. Setser
HONORABLE ERIN L. SETSER
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?