Bohannon v. Commissioner of Social Security
OPINION AND ORDER granting 29 Motion for Attorney Fees. The Court ORDERS that Plaintiff is awarded a total of $12,302.91 in fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. section 2412. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Martin on 1/18/17. (nal)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
CAUSE NO.: 2:15-CV-111-JEM
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Under the Equal
Access to Justice Act [DE 29], filed by Plaintiff on June 27, 2016. On March 29, 2016, the Court
issued an Opinion and Order remanding this matter for further proceedings. Plaintiff now requests
that the Court award her $11,995.49 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
On July 5, 2016, Defendant filed her response [DE 30] to the Motion, conceding that Plaintiff is
entitled to a fee award but arguing that the award should not exceed $6,328.68. Plaintiff filed a reply
[DE 31] on July 12, 2016, and requested an additional $402.42 in attorney fees for preparing the
The EAJA allows a prevailing plaintiff to recoup reasonable attorney fees incurred in
litigation against the Commissioner of Social Security “unless the court finds that the position of the
[Commissioner] was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.”
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see also Commissioner, I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 154 (1990);
Golembiewski v. Barnhart, 382 F.3d 721, 723-24 (7th Cir. 2004). Under 28 U.S.C. section
2412(d)(1)(B), a fee application must be filed within thirty days of a court’s final judgment and must
satisfy the following requirements: (1) a showing that the applicant is a “prevailing party;” (2) a
showing that the applicant is “eligible to receive an award;” (3) a showing of “the amount sought,
including an itemized statement from any attorney or expert witness representing or appearing on
behalf of the party stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other expenses
were computed;” and (4) an “alleg[ation] that the position of the [Commissioner] was not
substantially justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B); see also Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401,
405 (2004); United States v. Hallmark Constr. Co., 200 F.3d 1076, 1078-79 (7th Cir. 2000) (setting
forth the elements of § 2412(d)(1)(A) & (B)).
By obtaining a remand, Plaintiff is considered a “prevailing party.” See Bassett v. Astrue,
641 F.3d 857, 859 (7th Cir. 2011). There is no dispute that Plaintiff’s net worth does not exceed two
million dollars. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(B). Plaintiff filed the instant fee application within the
period in which to file a petition for fees. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412(d)(1)(B), (d)(2)(G). Furthermore,
the Commissioner “acknowledge[d] that Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of fees under the Equal
Access to Justice Act.” DE 30 at 3. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an attorney
fee award under the EAJA.
The limited issue before the Court, as raised in Defendant’s response, is the reasonableness
of Plaintiff’s fee request. The Commissioner asserts that both the hours worked and the hourly rate
used in Plaintiff’s request are unjustified. The Commissioner requests that the Court lower Plaintiff’s
overall fee request by reducing the number of hours upon which the fee calculation is based and by
reducing the hourly rate used in the calculation.
Reasonableness of Hours Expended
The Commissioner argues that Plaintiff’s counsel spent too many hours working on this case.
The Commissioner contends that the administrative record was not long or complicated and that the
arguments raised in the opening brief were standard. Defendant requests that the Court reduce the
attorney time by at least 27.3 hours, deducting 15 hours from the time spent on the opening brief,
8 hours from the time spent on the reply brief, and 4.3 hours spent editing and revising the opening
brief. Plaintiff argues that the hours expended by her attorney were reasonable because the opening
and reply briefs brief included extensive citations to cases, regulations, rulings, and medical
treatises. Furthermore, Plaintiff asserts that the stated hours worked, 62.2, is near the standard range
for Social Security cases in the Seventh Circuit.
After reviewing counsel for Plaintiff’s time itemization, the Court finds that the hours
worked in this case were reasonably expended. The standard range for hours worked on Social
Security litigation in the Seventh Circuit is 40-60 hours. See Ruiz v. Colvin, No. 2:14-CV-69-JEM,
2016 WL 2908287, at *2 (N.D. Ind. May 18, 2016) (citation omitted). The number of hours worked
in this case, 62.2, is slightly higher than the standard range. However, both Plaintiff’s opening and
reply briefs made significant and in-depth citations to the record below. Furthermore, attorneys in
this district have frequently been awarded fees based on hours significantly higher than the 40-60
range. See Ruiz, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65761 at *8-9 (collecting cases). Even though Plaintiff’s
counsel is an experienced Social Security attorney and the issues raised in Plaintiff’s briefs are
frequently raised in Social Security appeals, those facts alone do not justify decreasing Plaintiff’s
fee request. Each case requires new research and investigation, which is often time consuming. See
Ruiz, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65761 at *11 (N.D. Ind. May 18, 2016).
Accordingly, the hours Plaintiff’s attorney worked are reasonable.
Reasonableness of Hourly Rate
Defendant also argues that the hourly rate used in Plaintiff’s fee request is too high.
Defendant asserts that this Court should rely on the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI) rather than
the national CPI in determining the appropriate hourly fee. Using the national CPI, the hourly fee
is $191.33. Using the regional CPI, the hourly fee is $186.08, $5.25 lower.
Plaintiff asserts that the Northern District of Indiana routinely uses the national CPI in setting
the hourly rate, citing to this Court’s order in Ruiz v. Colvin, No. 2:14-CV-69-JEM, 2016 WL
2908287, at *2 (N.D. Ind. May 18, 2016). Plaintiff also attached declarations from six attorneys who
routinely work on Social Security cases in the Seventh Circuit. These declarations demonstrate that
the going rate for similar services performed by experienced Social Security attorneys is typically
$250 to $500 per hour. The Commissioner does not challenge these declarations or suggest that they
do not represent the going rate for Social Security appeals in the Seventh Circuit.
The EAJA provides that a Plaintiff may recover attorney’s fees that “shall be based upon
prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of the services furnished, except that . . . attorney
fees shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in
the cost of living or a special factor . . . justifies a higher fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii). The
Seventh Circuit has interpreted this statute to mean that an attorney is not “automatic[ally]
to fee enhancements.” Sprinkle v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 421, 428 (7th Cir. 2015). Rather, the EAJA’s
language regarding the cost of living “reflects an assumption that general measures like the
[consumer price index] will provide a reasonably accurate measure of the need for an inflation
adjustment in most cases.” Id.
For example, a plaintiff may show the effect of inflation on her attorney’s abilities to provide
adequate legal services by submitting “evidence of his typical hourly rate, how his operating costs
have been affected by inflation, what competent lawyers in the relevant geographic area charge, or
that no qualified attorney would provide representation in comparable cases at the statutory rate.”
Walton v. Colvin, No. 1:12-CV-688, 2013 WL 1438103, at *4 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 9, 2013). The decision
to set the hourly rate at the national or regional prevailing rate is left to the discretion of the district
court. Sprinkle, 777 F.3d at 428, n. 2.
Plaintiff’s requested hourly rate, $191.33, is justified in this case. While the Commissioner
is correct that the geographic location of the litigation is an appropriate factor to consider in
determining whether a requested hourly rate is appropriate, the Plaintiff may also “produce evidence
that the rate . . . requested is in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by
lawyers of comparable skill and experience.” Id. at 428. Plaintiff’s declarations demonstrate that the
prevailing market rate in the Seventh Circuit for Social Security appeals handled by experienced
attorneys is between $250 and $550 an hour. Although calculated using the national CPI, Plaintiff’s
requested rate is well below that range.
Furthermore, as this Court has discussed when the Commissioner previously questioned
whether the national CPI was an appropriate basis for calculating attorney fee awards, courts in the
Northern District of Indiana frequently use the national rather than regional CPI in calculating an
appropriate hourly rate. See Ruiz, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65761 at *6 (collecting cases).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requested hourly fee is appropriate.
Consistent with the foregoing discussion, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion
for Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act [DE 29] and ORDERS that Plaintiff is
awarded a total of $12,302.91 in fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C.
SO ORDERED this 18th day of January, 2017.
s/ John E. Martin
MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN E. MARTIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
All counsel of record.
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?