Gibson v. Colvin

Filing 34

ORDER granting 30 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff's counsel is awarded fees in the amount of $8,654.94 and expenses in the amount of $350.00. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 2/18/2015. (Marsh, K)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
No. 7:13-CV-62-BO
DEBORA GIBSON,

)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.

)
)

CAROLYN COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

ORDER

)
)
)
)

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion for attorney's fees and costs pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). [DE 30]. For the reasons
discussed below, plaintiffs motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Gibson sought appellate review of the Commissioner's decision before this Court on
April 5, 2013. On August 28, 2014, a hearing was held in Raleigh, North Carolina, after which
this Court remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to
one of three arguments presented by plaintiff. Plaintiff now seeks an award of attorney's fees
under the EAJA in the amount of $8,654.94 for 46.3 hours of attorney time spent on the appeal
and $350.00 in filing fees. 1 Defendant does not dispute that plaintiffwas the prevailing party,
that defendant's position in the underlying litigation was unjustified, or that plaintiff is
procedurally eligible for EAJA fees. Defendant does, however argue that the number of hours
billed by plaintiff is excessive and warrants reduction.

1

Roughly 1.6 of plaintiffs 46.3 hours were billed for responding to defendant's opposition to
the instant motion.

DISCUSSION
Under the EAJA, parties who prevail in litigation against the United States are entitled to
payment for reasonable attorney's fees unless the position of the United States throughout the
litigation was "substantially justified." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). In order to establish eligibility
for an award under the EAJA, the claimant must show that (i) she is the prevailing party; (ii) the
government's position was not substantially justified; (iii) no special circumstances make an
award unjust; and (iv) the fee application was submitted to the court within thirty days of final
judgment and was supported by an itemized statement. See Crawford v. Sullivan, 935 F.2d 655,
656 (4th Cir. 1991). As defendant does not dispute that plaintiff meets these threshold conditions
for an award of fees and costs under the EAJA, the Court finds that plaintiff has met them.
"Once the district court determines that plaintiffs have met the threshold conditions for
an award of fees and costs under the EAJA, the district court must undertake the 'task of
determining what fee is reasonable."' Hyatt v. Barnhart, 315 F.3d 239, 253 (4th Cir. 2001)
(citation omitted). As the prevailing party here, "plaintiff 'bears the burden of establishing that
the number of hours for which she seeks reimbursement is reasonable and does not include any
claim for hours which are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary."' Dixon v. Astrue, No.
5:06-CV-77-JG, 2008 WL 360989, *3 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 8, 2008) (citation omitted). In determining
the amount of a fee, a court may consider the extent of plaintiffs success, the novelty and
complexity of the issues presented, the experience and skill of the attorney, and the typical range
of compensated hours in a particular field. !d. at *3-*4. A court has great discretion to determine
the fee award so long as the fee is reasonable. Hyatt, 315 F.3d at 254.
The bulk of the hours billed were devoted to reviewing transcripts and summarizing the
lengthy medical evidence, a fact which defendant does not dispute. Given that the record in this

2

case was over 1000 pages long, the number ofhours spent is not excessive. In fact, plaintiffs
invoice for 46.3 hours is not much greater than the typical range of compensated hours in social
security disability litigation despite the incredibly lengthy record. See, e.g., DiGennaro v. Bowen,
666 F.Supp 426,433 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) (finding that "compensated hours generally range from
twenty to forty hours."); see also Hutchison v. Chater, No. 95-44084-SAC, 1996 WL 699695, *3
(D.Kan Oct. 31, 1996) (holding that the "typical EAJA fee application in social security cases
claims between thirty and forty hours"). 2 Moreover, an award of $8,654.94 leaves this case well
within the heartland of recent attorney's fees awarded by this Court. See Jenkins v. Colvin, No.
7:12-CV-351-BO (awarding EAJA fees in the amount of$9,125.00 on June 9, 2014); West v.

Colvin, No. 5:11-CV-664-BO (awarding $10,000.00 on November 6, 2014).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs motion for EAJA fees is GRANTED and
plaintiffs counsel is awarded fees in the amount of$8,654.94 and expenses in the amount of
$350.00.
SO ORDERED, thisJB:_ day of February, 2015.

T
NCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRI

2

Although the Commissioner is correct that plaintiff achieved success on only one ground out of
the three presented, the Court did not address the remaining issues plaintiff raised. Accordingly,
the Court declines to adopt defendant's argument that the lack of a decision on the remaining two
issues presented demonstrates that plaintiff achieved limited success.

3