Crisan v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
21
Opinion and Order: The unopposed motion for an award of EAJA attorney fees (Doc. No. 20 ) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2412 in the amount of $6,000.00 is granted. This amount shall be paid in accordance with the procedure outlined. Judge Sara Lioi on 11/6/2014. (P,J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
SANDRA THERESE CRISAN,
PLAINTIFF,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
COMMISSIOINER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
DEFENDANT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:14 cv 384
JUDGE SARA LIOI
OPINION AND ORDER
AWARDING ATTORNEY FEES
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2412
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ stipulation for an award of
attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The Court
construes the parties’ stipulation as an unopposed motion for an award of attorney fees.
(Motion, Doc. No. 20). For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action on February 20, 2014 seeking review of the
Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. (Doc. No. 1.)
Subsequently, the parties filed a joint stipulation to remand the case for further
proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and enter judgment in favor
of plaintiff. (Doc. No. 14.) The Court construed the parties’ stipulation as a joint motion
to remand, which was granted, and the Court ordered remand of the case for further
proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. Nos. 15 and 16.)
Thereafter, plaintiff moved for attorney fees under the EAJA. (Doc. No.
17). After defendant sought and received an extension of time to respond to plaintiff’s
attorney fee application (Doc. Nos. 18 and 19), the unopposed motion for an award of
attorney fees now before the Court was filed.1
The parties seek an order from the Court for an award of attorney fees in
the amount of $6,000.00 as compensation for all legal services rendered on behalf of
plaintiff in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), but agree that the
award of fees under § 2412 is without prejudice to the rights of plaintiff’s counsel to seek
Social Security Act attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406. (Motion at 870-71.2)
The parties also agree in the motion that an attorney fee award under the
EAJA is subject to offset by any outstanding federal debt owed by plaintiff as follows: 1)
If plaintiff has no outstanding federal debt, then the entire amount of the attorney fee
award is payable; 2) If the plaintiff has outstanding federal debt in an amount less than
$6,000.00, then the amount of attorney fees payable to plaintiff will be the remaining
balance of the award after subtracting the amount of plaintiff’s outstanding federal debt;
and 3) If plaintiff’s outstanding federal debt exceeds $6,000.00, then that amount will be
used in its entirety to offset plaintiff’s outstanding federal debt and no attorney fees shall
be paid. Id.
1
The unopposed motion for attorney fees supersedes plaintiff’s application for attorney fees as to the
amount of the fee sought. (Doc. No. 17).
2
All references to page numbers are to the page identification numbers generated by the Court's electronic
docketing system.
2
II. DISCUSSION
The EAJA requires the government to pay a prevailing social security
plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs “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); see Howard v. Barnhart, 376 F.3d 551, 554 (6th Cir. 2004).
“Prevailing party” status is “achieved within the meaning of the statute when the plaintiff
succeeded in securing a sentence four remand order . . . .” Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S.
292, 300-01, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993).
Plaintiff brought this action for judicial review of the Commissioner’s
denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and succeeded in securing a
sentence four remand to the Commissioner for further consideration of her application.
Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff is a prevailing party for the purposes of the
EAJA.
The EAJA provides that the amount of an attorney fee award shall be
based on prevailing market rates, but shall not exceed $125 per hour unless the court
determines that the cost of living or special factors justifies a higher fee. 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d)(2)(A)(ii). The change in the cost of living over the years since the $125 per hour
rate was established justifies an increase in the statutory rate. See Crenshaw v.
Commissioner of Social Security, No. 1:13CV1845, 2014 WL 4388254 at *3 (N.D. Ohio
September 5, 2014).
3
The appropriate measure of inflation in this geographic area is the
“Midwest Urban” CPI. See Crenshaw, 2014 WL 4388254 at *3 (collecting cases).3
Plaintiff’s attorney’s EAJA time statement submitted with her fee application (Doc. No.
17-3) indicates that legal services in this caw were rendered from April 2014 through
June 2014, for a total of 33.25 hours.4 The average Midwest Urban CPI for this period5 is
226.789. Dividing this number by 151.7, the value for March 1996 when the EAJA value
of $125 was established,6 the Court calculates the cost of living increase to be 1.50 (i.e.
226.789 ÷ 151.7 = 1.49498). Multiplying $125 by that increase, the adjusted appropriate
hourly rate is $187.50 (i.e. $125 x 1.5). The Court has also examined and considered the
materials provided with plaintiff’s attorney fee application. Those materials reflect that
the prevailing hourly rate for attorneys in the Cleveland area for the kind and quality of
service provided by plaintiff’s attorney in this case exceeds $200 per hour, which further
justifies an increase in the statutory rate by the Midwest Urban CPI. (See Doc. Nos. 17-6
and 17-8.)
The unopposed motion for attorney fees seeks an award of $6,000.00. This
amount, divided by the number of hours for legal services rendered before this court—
33.25—results in an hourly rate of $187.50. The Court concludes that the attorney hours
claimed in plaintiff’s fee application, and an hourly rate of $187.50, are both reasonable
3
The Midwest Urban CPI can be found on the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(http://www.bls.gov).
4
The number of hours claimed by plaintiff in her fee application is certainly not exorbitant and the
government does not argue that the hours claimed are excessive or unreasonable. Having examined the
statement and considering plaintiff’s successful outcome, the Court concludes that 33.25 hours is
reasonable in this case.
5
April 2014 (226.214), May 2014 (226.565), June 2014 (227.588).
6
See Crenshaw v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2014 WL 4388254 at *3.
4
and supportable under the EAJA. Finally, defendant has made no attempt to demonstrate
that the government’s denial of plaintiff’s disability application was substantially
justified, and the Court is not aware of any special circumstances that would make an
attorney fee award unjust. Accordingly, the motion for an attorney fee award of
$6,000.00 is granted.
As the parties recognize in the motion, EAJA attorney fees payable to
plaintiff are subject to offset to satisfy pre-existing federal debt owed by plaintiff. See
Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 177 L.Ed.2d 91 (2010). Payment may be
made directly to plaintiff’s attorney only if plaintiff owes no debt to the government and
plaintiff has assigned any right to EAJA attorney fees to the attorney.7 Crenshaw v.
Commissioner of Social Security, 2014 WL 4388254 at *5. Therefore, the Commissioner
is ordered to determine, within 30 days from the date of this order, whether plaintiff owes
a preexisting debt to the government, to offset any such debt against the award granted
herein, and to pay the balance to the plaintiff, or to plaintiff’s attorney, in accordance
with the provisions of any assignment plaintiff has made with respect to EAJA fees.
7
The motion states that there is an assignment by plaintiff of attorney fees to counsel, and plaintiff attached
a fee agreement assigning EAJA fees to her fee application. (Doc. Nos. 20 at 870, and 17-4.)
5
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the unopposed motion for an award of
EAJA attorney fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 in the amount of $6,000.00 is
GRANTED. This amount shall be paid in accordance with the procedure outlined above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 6, 2014
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
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?