Harrington v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM RULING granting 18 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge David J Ayo on 1/7/2025. (crt,Thomas, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
CHARLOTTE ANN HARRINGTON

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23-CV-00335

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID J. AYO

MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the court is the UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO THE
EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 filed by Plaintiff Charlotte Ann Harrington.
(Rec. Doc. 18). The motion is unopposed by the Commissioner.
Harrington filed an application for supplemental security income on October 10, 2019,
alleging disability beginning on September 10, 2019.

After the application was denied

initially on May 5, 2020, and on reconsideration, she requested a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge, who issued an unfavorable ruling on September 22, 2022.
Harrington’s request for review was denied by the Appeals Council, and she subsequently
filed a federal appeal of the ALJ’s decision in this Court on March 14, 2023. On September
13, 2024, the Court reversed and remanded this matter to the Commissioner pursuant to the
fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Harrington now seeks a total of $5,180.00 in fees at the rate $200.00 per hour for 23.2
hours of attorney time and $100.00 per hour for 5.4 hours of paralegal time. In support of
this request, Harrington’s counsel, Edward Wicklund, submitted a schedule describing the
services performed on Harrington’s behalf and the time billed in connection with each task
in minimal increments of .10 hour. (Rec. Docs. 19-1, 19-2, 19-3).

1

Guidelines for Attorney’s Fees and Expenses Calculation
The Equal Access to Justice Act provides that “a court shall award to a prevailing
party other than the United States fees and other expenses… unless the court finds that the
position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make
an award unjust.”

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).

The Act thus places the burden on the

Commissioner to show that the stated statutory exceptions make an award of fees and
expenses inappropriate.

Davidson v. Veneman, 317 F.3d 503, 506 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing

Herron v. Bowman, 788 F.2d 1127, 1130 (5th Cir. 1986)). A party who wins a sentence-four
remand is a prevailing party. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302 (1993); Breaux v. United
States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 20 F.3d 1324 (5th Cir. 1994). Considering the fourth
sentence remand and the lack of opposition to the instant motion, this Court finds that
Harrington is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees.
Reasonable Hourly Rate
The hourly rate at which an attorney fee award under the EAJA may be calculated is
determined “according to prevailing market rates in the relevant legal market.” Hopwood v.
Texas, 236 F.3d 256, 281 (5th Cir. 2000). Where the prevailing market rate exceeds the
$125.00 statutory cap, the court must examine whether “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 rate.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii).
In Carr v. Kijakazi, 2023 WL 3168676 (W.D. La. 4/13/2023), adopted by, 2023 WL
3168343 (4/28/2023), this Court reconsidered the prevailing market rate for social security
fee awards under the EAJA. The Court found an hourly rate of $200.00 was reasonable based
on increases in cost of living since its last examination of the issue in 2016, wherein it set the
prevailing rate at $175.00 per hour. 2023 WL 3168676, at * 3 (citing Montgomery v. Colvin,

2

2016 WL 4705730 (W.D. La. 8/16/2016), adopted by, 2016 WL 4705573 (W.D. La. 9/8/2016)).
Reasonable Hours Expended
The Commissioner does not oppose the number of hours claimed by Harrington’s
counsel. Furthermore, the undersigned concludes that the claimed time expenditure of 5.4
hours in paralegal time and 23.2 hours in attorney time is reasonable for this type of case.
Johnson Analysis
Having determined the lodestar by establishing the prevailing market rate and the
hours reasonably expended, the next step requires that the court analyze the twelve Johnson
factors to determine if the lodestar requires adjustment. Johnson v. Ga. Hwy. Express, Inc.,
488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by, Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S.
87 (1989).

The lodestar is presumptively reasonable and should be modified only in

exceptional cases. Combs v. City of Huntington, Texas, 829 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 2016)
(citing Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 553–54 (2010)).

In this case, the

lodestar is $200.00 x 23.2 or $4,640.00 plus $100.00 x 5.4 or $540.00 for a total of $5,180.00.
Under Johnson, the court should consider the impact of the following factors on the
lodestar: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the question; (3)
the skill required of the attorney; (4) the preclusion of other work; (5) the customary fee; (6)
whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed; (8) the amount involved
and results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney; (10) the
“undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with
the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. Johnson, supra, at 718-719. Factors 1, 3, 8, 9,
and 12 are reflected in the lodestar. Walker v. U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev., 99 F.3d
761 (5th Cir. 1996) (cautioning court against double-counting certain Johnson factors already
fairly represented by the lodestar).

No evidence before this Court indicates that an

3

adjustment of the lodestar under factors 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 or 11 is warranted in this case.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that the appellant’s pending UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
PURSUANT TO 2THE EQUAL JUSTICE ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (Rec. Doc. 18)
is GRANTED based on this Court’s finding that the lodestar established as $200.00 per hour
for 23.2 hours for attorney fees and $100.00 per hour for 5.4 hours for paralegal fees should
be applied under applicable law and jurisprudence. Accordingly, it is further
ORDERED that the sum of $5,180.00 in attorney fees and is awarded to appellant
Charlotte Ann Harrington as an EAJA attorney fee. The Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration shall remit to Harrington’s counsel a check made payable to Charlotte Ann
Harrington in the amount of $5,180.00 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2412(d)(1)(A) within forty-five
days of the issuance of this Order.
SO ORDERED this 7th day of January, 2025, at Lafayette, Louisiana.

4