Forsythe v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 39

OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING 35 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Plaintiff Judith M. Forsythe and awarding the plaintiff fees in the amount of $5,544.42 and costs in the amount of $400.00. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/25/2016. (lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
JUDITH M. FORSYTHE,
Plaintiff
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 2:14-CV-398 RLM

OPINION and ORDER
This cause is before the court on Judith Forsythe’s motion for attorney fees
and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, following the
court’s entry of final judgment remanding the case to the Commissioner of Social
Security for further proceedings. Ms. Forsythe requests an award of fees in the
amount of $5,544.42 and $400.00 in costs. The Commissioner doesn’t oppose her
request.
The EAJA permits recovery of attorney fees based on “prevailing market
rates,” but not in excess of $125 per hour “unless 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.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2412(d)(2)(A). Ms. Forsythe requests fees for her attorney at the rate of $184.20
per hour for work performed on her case, and asserts that an hourly fee greater
than $125.00 for counsel is warranted based on inflation, a rise in the cost of
living, and rates charged for similar services in this district.

In accordance with Section 204(d) of the Act, Ms. Forsythe has submitted
an itemized statement from her attorney showing “the actual time expended and
the rate at which fees and other expenses were computed.” 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d)(1)(B). Counsel explains that his hourly rates for work performed in 2014
and 2015 are based on the cost of living adjustments allowed by statute when
employing the Consumer Price Index for “all urban consumers for the Midwest
urban region” obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The court finds that “given the passage of time since the establishment of
the hourly rate, a cost-of-living adjustment is warranted,” counsel’s use of the
Consumer Price Index to calculate an appropriate inflation adjustment is
reasonable. Tchemkou v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 506, 512 (7th Cir. 2008); see also
Williams v. Astrue, No. 11 C 2053, 2013 WL 250795, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2013)
(“Courts in this district have allowed claimants to use the Consumer Price Index
to adjust hourly attorneys’ rates to account for cost of living increases in EAJA
cases.”). As noted above, the Commissioner doesn’t object to the hourly rates
charged or the amount of fees requested by Ms. Forsythe.
The court GRANTS the motion for an award of fees and costs under the
Equal Access to Justice Act [Doc. No.35], and awards the plaintiff fees in the
amount of $5,544.42 and costs in the amount of $400.00.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED:

January 25, 2016

2

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge, United States District Court

3