Vaughn v. Berryhill

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 30 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses Pursuant to EAJA filed by Plaintiff Cynthia Vaughn motion is GRANTING. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Other E xpenses Under the Provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 is GRANTED. [Doc. 30.] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Social Security Administration shall remit to Plaintiff, attorney's fees and costs in the amount of � 36;3,850.54, subject to any pre-existing debt that the Plaintiff owes the United States and the check should be mailed to Plaintiffs counsel Stephanie Bartels at Wallace, Bartels, Sherman, and Wallace, PLLC, P.O. Box 1640, Jonesboro Arkansas 72403-1640. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker on 11/10/20. (CMH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

CYNTHIA VAUGHN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

Case No. 1:17-CV-56 NAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees and
Other Expenses Under the Provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412
(“EAJA”). [Doc. 30.] Plaintiff requests fees in the amount of $3,850.54 for 12.65 hours of
attorney work between 2017 and 2020, 15.15 hours of paralegal work, and costs in the amount of
$142.39. Defendant Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security, does not object to
Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs, nor the amount requested. [Doc. 32.] Based on
the following, the Court will award Plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $3,850.54.
I.

Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff Cynthia Vaughn filed this action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for judicial

review of the final decision of Defendant denying Plaintiff’s application for supplemental security
income under the Social Security Act.

[Doc. 1.]

On July 28, 2020, the Court issued a

Memorandum and Order and Judgment in favor of Plaintiff pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). [Docs. 28, 29.] Plaintiff filed a request for attorney’s fees under the EAJA on October
7, 2020. [Doc. 30.] Defendant filed a response on October 19, 2020. [Doc. 32.]

II.

Standard of Review
“A court shall award to a prevailing party . . . fees and other expenses, . . . incurred by that

party in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort), including proceedings for judicial
review of agency action, brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction
of that action, 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).
A party seeking an award of fees and other expenses must (1) submit to the court an
application for fees and other expenses which shows that the party is a prevailing party and eligible
to receive an award; (2) provide 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; (3) allege that the position
of the United States was not substantially justified; and (4) make the application within thirty days
of final judgment of the action. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). The determination of whether the
position of the United States was substantially justified shall be determined on the basis of the
record made in the action for which the fees are sought. Id. “In sentence four [remand] cases, the
filing period begins after the final judgment (‘affirming, modifying, or reversing’) is entered by
the Court and the appeal period has run so that the judgment is no longer appealable.” Melkonyan
v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 102 (1991) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(G) (“Final judgment” means
a judgment that is final and not appealable.”)).
“A disability benefits claimant is a prevailing party if the claimant ultimately obtains the
benefits sought on appeal to the district court.” Koss v. Sullivan, 982 F.2d 1226, 1229 (8th Cir.
1993) (citing Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877, 886–87 (1990); Swedberg v. Bowen, 804 F.2d 432,
434 (8th Cir.1986)(plaintiff must have received some, but not necessarily all benefits sought in the

2

action)). “Obtaining a sentence-four judgment reversing the Secretary’s denial of benefits is
sufficient to confer prevailing party status.” Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 12.652, 302 (1993).
III.

Discussion
In this action, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that an award of attorney’s

fees under the EAJA is appropriate in this matter. First, Plaintiff is a prevailing party in this action,
because she has obtained a reversal of the Commissioner’s denial of her application for benefits.
[Doc. 28.]
Second, Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees is reasonable.

Plaintiff requests

attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,780.15 for 12.65 hours of attorney work and 15.15 hours of
paralegal work between 2017 and 2020. Plaintiff includes an itemized statement from her attorney
stating the actual time expended and the rate at which the attorney’s fees were computed.
Therefore, the Court will award Plaintiff attorney’s fees for a total of 12.65 hours of attorney work
and 15.15 hours of paralegal work.
The EAJA sets a statutory limit on the amount of fees awarded to counsel at $125.00 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)(ii). “In determining a reasonable attorney’s fee, the court will in each
case consider the following factors: time and labor required; the difficulty of questions involved;
the skill required to handle the problems presented; the attorney’s experience, ability, and
reputation; the benefits resulting to the client from the services; the customary fee for similar
services; the contingency or certainty of compensation; the results obtained; and the amount
involved.” Richardson-Ward v. Astrue, 2009 WL1616701, No. 4:07-CV-1171 JCH at *1 (E.D.
Mo. June 9, 2009). “The decision to increase the hourly rate is at the discretion of the district

3

court.” Id. at *2. “Where, as here, an EAJA petitioner presents uncontested proof of an increase
in the cost of living sufficient to justify hourly attorney’s fees of more than [$125.00] per hour,
enhanced fees should be awarded.” Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 505 (8th Cir. 1990).
Plaintiff’s counsel cited evidence from the U.S. Department of Labor, explaining the
change in the cost of living from 1996 when the $125.00 hourly limitation became effective and
the period of time between 2017 and 2020. Plaintiff suggests that the calculation for attorney’s
fees be made at the following rates:
Year

Hourly Rate based
Consumer Price Index
$196.00
$202.00
$205.00
$206.00

2017
2018
2019
2020

on Number of Hours
2.25
0.60
9.10
0.70

Plaintiff seeks compensation for paralegal fees in the amount of $75.00 per hour for 15.15 hours
of paralegal work. Defendant does not contest the hourly rate, the total fee request, nor the number
of hours itemized in the invoice. Upon consideration of these facts, the Court finds that the hourly
rate, number of hours expended, and a total attorney’s fee award of $3,780.15 is reasonable. As
alleged by Plaintiff, the Court finds that the Defendant’s position was not substantially justified.
Plaintiff’s application for fees was timely filed.

Therefore, the Court will award Plaintiff

$3,780.15 in attorney’s fees for 12.65 hours of attorney work and 15.15 hours of paralegal work
between 2017 and 2020.
Plaintiff also seeks costs in the amount of $142.39 for copies for medical records. “A
judgment for costs when taxed against the United States shall, in an amount established by statute,
court rule, or order, be limited to reimbursing in whole or in part the prevailing party for the costs

4

incurred by such party in the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a)(1). Based on the foregoing, the
Court will award Plaintiff $142.39 for reimbursement of costs.
Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit assigning any award she may receive under the EAJA
to her counsel of record. The EAJA requires that the attorney’s fee award be awarded to the
prevailing party, in this case the Plaintiff, not the Plaintiff’s attorney. Astrue v. Ratcliff, 560 U.S.
586, 591 (2010) (the term “prevailing party” in fee statutes is a “term of art” that refers to the
prevailing litigant (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A)). Awards of attorney fees to the prevailing
party under the EAJA are “subject to a [g]overnment offset to satisfy a pre-existing debt that the
litigant owes the United States.” Ratcliff, 560 U.S. at 589. Any award for attorney’s fees must be
subject to any government offset, even if the Plaintiff has assigned her right to the award to her
attorney. Therefore, the Court will direct the Commissioner to make Plaintiff’s attorney’s fee
award payable to Plaintiff as directed below, subject to any pre-existing debt Plaintiff owes to the
United States.
IV.

Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court will award Plaintiff attorney’s fees and costs in the

amount of $3,850.54.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees and
Other Expenses Under the Provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 is
GRANTED. [Doc. 30.]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Social Security Administration shall remit to
Plaintiff, attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $3,850.54, subject to any pre-existing debt that
the Plaintiff owes the United States and the check should be mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel Stephanie

5

Bartels at Wallace, Bartels, Sherman, and Wallace, PLLC, P.O. Box 1640, Jonesboro Arkansas
72403-1640.

NANNETTE A. BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 10th day of November, 2020.

6