Daniels v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 41

Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 4/4/13. The Court denies the government's motion to alter or amend the earlier judgment granting plaintiff attorneys' fees. (Related Doc. 32 , 35 ) (M,G)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
COURTNEY M. DANIELS,
:
:
CASE NO. 1:11-CV-806
Plaintiff,
:
:
vs.
:
OPINION & ORDER
:
[Resolving Doc. 35.]
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
:
SECURITY,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
------------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
In this Social Security case, the Government moves this Court to alter or amend its earlier
judgment granting Plaintiff attorneys’ fees.1/ Because the Government does not identify grounds for
relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 and because the Court stands by its earlier order, the
Court DENIES the government’s motion.
On November 8, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for attorney fees under the Equal
Access to Justice Act, (“EAJA”), which provides that:
a court shall award to a prevailing party . . . fees and other expenses . . . incurred by
that party in any civil action . . . brought by or against the United States . . . unless the
court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that
special circumstances make an award unjust.2/
She sought an award of attorney fees at the rate of $175.00 per hour for compensable hours billed
in 2011, and $179.59 per hour in 2012.3/
After consideration of the relevant law, this Court determined that Plaintiff’s attorneys have

1/

[Doc. 35.]

2/

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).

3/

[Doc. 27 at 4-5.]

-1-

Case No. 1:11-CV-0806
Gwin, J.
over-thirty years of experience, each, in Social Security law.4/ With experience comes greater
familiarity, facility, and, therefore, speed. This Court has recognized that Social Security cases often
involve thirty to forty hours of work.5/ Plaintiff requested fees for just nineteen hours of work.6/
Acknowledging that no two cases are identical, the Court reasoned that economies based on
Plaintiff’s attorneys’ experience in this area at least warrant that the time spent on this matter be
compensated at a higher rate than the presumptive statutory cap of $125 per hour.7/
The Government now moves this Court to alter or amend this earlier order pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 because “circuit courts around the country have held that
litigation of Social Security matters does not require expertise outside the general ability of an
attorney that would warrant an enhanced fee beyond the statutory rates.”8/ Daniels says that the
Court should deny the motion because “[t]he Commissioner has not proven that this Court’s ruling
is based on clear error, particularly since he acknowledges that the law clearly gives the Court
authority to increase the fee above the statutory amount based on the Court’s own discretion.”9/
“A district court may alter or amend a judgment under Civil Rule 59(e) to correct a clear error
of law; account for newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in the controlling law; or

4/

[Doc. 27 at 5.]

5/

See Kane v. Astrue, 1:10CV1874, 2012 W L 5357781 at *4 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 31, 2012); see also Grooms v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2:08-14189, 2011 W L 4536886 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2011); cf. Hayes v. Sec'y of Health & Human
Services, 923 F.2d 418, 420 (6th Cir. 1990).
6/

[Docs. 27-5, 27-6.]

7/

See, e.g., Willis v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 10-CV-594, 2012 W L 4322604 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 20, 2012) (citing
attorney’s thirty-five years of experience).
8/

[Doc. 35-1 at 5.]

9/

[Doc. 40 at 2.]

-2-

Case No. 1:11-CV-0806
Gwin, J.
otherwise prevent manifest injustice.”10/
The Government does not cite a manifest injustice, nor does it present any newly discovered
evidence or cite an intervening change in the controlling law. Instead, the Government seems to
suggest that because numerous circuits have declined to award attorneys’ fees above the presumptive
statutory rate based on counsel’s experience alone, this Court has committed an error. This argument
fails. First, this Court cited two factors in its earlier decision: counsel’s experience and the
uncharacteristically low number of hours billed towards this matter. Second, as the Government’s
string citation shows, the Sixth Circuit does not appear to have addressed the relevance of experience
to attorney billing rates in Social Security matters. Thus, this Court committed no clear error of law.
Because the Court finds no basis on which to grant Rule 59 relief, the Court DENIES the
Government’s motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 4, 2013

10/

Heil Co. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 690 F.3d 722, 728 (6th Cir. 2012).

-3-