Wohleber v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
25
Memorandum Opinion & Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion for attorney fees (Related Doc # 23 ); the Court awards attorney fees in the amount of $4,886.95. Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke on 10/24/2016.(D,I)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL T. WOHLEBER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:15CV2294
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KATHLEEN B. BURKE
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Having prevailed in obtaining a reversal and remand of the Commissioner’s decision
denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security
Income (“SSI”), Plaintiff Michael Wohleber (“Plaintiff”) now seeks an award of attorney fees
pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) in the amount of $4,914.96. Doc. 23.
Plaintiff seeks an award based on an hourly rate of $182.25/hour for his attorneys and $50/hour
for his attorney’s appellate assistant. Id. Defendant filed a response in which she states that she
will not be filing an objection to Plaintiff’s motion. Doc. 24. As explained below, the Court
concludes that an award of fees pursuant to the EAJA is warranted in this case and that Plaintiff
has submitted sufficient evidentiary support to obtain an hourly rate of $182.25; however, the
Court finds that the hourly rate for Appellant Assistant Shriver requested by Plaintiff is slightly
higher than justified and, therefore, awards fees based on work done by Shriver at $40/hour.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to EAJA is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.
I. The EAJA Standard
The EAJA provides,
1
Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a
prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses ... incurred
by that party in any civil action ..., including proceedings for judicial review of
agency 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.
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 556 (1988). Thus, a
prevailing party in an action against the United States can recover fees and expenses, unless the
United States’ position was “substantially justified” or “special circumstances make an award
unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see Pierce, 487 U.S. at 556.
Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff is the prevailing party. See Doc. 21. See also Shalala
v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 301 (1993) (holding that a plaintiff is the prevailing party in a
sentence four remand). Plaintiff filed his motion for fees in a timely manner. See 28 U.S.C. §§
2412(d)(1)(B), 2412(d)(1)(D)(2)(B).
II. Reasonableness of Attorney Fees
In March 1996, Congress amended the EAJA by increasing the cap for hourly rates for
attorney fees from $75.00 to $125.00 per hour. Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996); see
Hawk v. Astrue, No. 4:11-CV-196, 2013 WL 139799, at *1 (N.D. Ohio January 10, 2013). Now,
the EAJA provides that the amount of fees awarded to a prevailing party where the United
States’ position is not substantially justified
shall be based upon prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of the services
furnished … attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $125 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); Bryant v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 578 F.3d 443, 449-50 (6th Cir. 2009).
When a plaintiff requests an increase over the statutory cap of $125 per hour, he or she
“bear[s] the burden of producing appropriate evidence to support the requested increase.” Id. at
2
450 (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 898 (1984)). To justify an upward departure from the
statutory cap Plaintiff must satisfy the following:
a plaintiff should submit or base her request on the following: (1) the ClevelandAkron CPI; (2) Plaintiff’s attorney’s affidavit stating the attorney’s usual hourly
rate and experience; (3) a time sheet showing hours worked on the case; and (4)
either (a) a practice-specific, local fee survey; or (b) an affidavit or affidavits from
other social security practitioners in the area describing their experience and
hourly rate; or (c) an affidavit or affidavits from other social security practitioners
describing their experience and indicating that the rates sought by plaintiff’s
attorney are in line with prevailing rates in the Cleveland area for services by
lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.
Hall v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12-CV-01764, 2013 WL 6797663, at *3 (N.D. Ohio
December 23, 2013).
Here, Plaintiff relies on the Urban CPI; one of his attorney’s affidavit; his attorneys’ and
appellate assistant’s time sheets; and affidavits from two other social security practitioners
describing their experience and indicating that the rates sought by Plaintiff’s attorney are in line
with prevailing rates in the local area for services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill,
experience, and reputation. Doc. 23, Attachments 1-6, 11. Plaintiff has submitted sufficient
evidence to warrant an increase from $125.00/hr to $182.25/hr. In addition, the 26.2 hours
expended by the attorneys is reasonable. Therefore, the Court awards attorney fees in the
amount of $4774.95 (26.2 hours x $182.25 per hour).
Plaintiff also requests an award of fees for time expended by appellate assistant Diane
Shriver at a rate of $50.00 per hour. Doc. 23, p. 3. In support, Plaintiff relies on the Bureau of
Labor Statistics data for clerical wages. Doc. 23-9. This filing does not support his request for
$50/hr for Shriver. The Court finds that an hourly rate of $40 rather than $50 is a reasonable fee
for work performed by the appellate assistant. See, e.g., Gunther v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 943 F.
Supp. 2d 797, 804-805 (N.D. Ohio 2013). The Court finds the 2.80 hours expended by Appellate
3
Assistant Shriver to be reasonable. Therefore, the Court awards appellate assistant fees in the
amount of $112.00 (2.8 hours x $40 per hour).
In sum, the Court finds that the 29 total hours expended by attorneys Mary Meadows,
Melissa Kunder and Appellate Assistant Shriver to be reasonable and awards attorney fees in the
amount of $4,886.95 (26.2 hours at $182.25/hr plus 2.8 hours at $40/hr). Any fees paid belong
to Plaintiff and can be offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt that Plaintiff owes the United States,
pursuant to the decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). Therefore, the fee award shall
be payable to Plaintiff. Once counsel for the parties can verify that Plaintiff owes no pre-existing
debts to the United States that are subject to offset, Defendant will direct that the award be made
payable to Plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to the attorney’s fee assignment signed by Plaintiff and
his counsel (Doc. 23-13).
III. Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 23); the Court awards attorney fees in the amount of
$4,886.95.
Dated: October 24, 2016
KATHLEEN B. BURKE
U.S. Magistrate Judge
4
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?