Weathers v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 32

ORDER granting 29 Motion for Attorney Fees Application Of Plaintiff For An Award Of Attorney's Fees Under The Equal Access To Justice Act (28 U.S.C. Section 2412 (d), awarding plaintiff $6,071.75 (37.25 hours of work by theattorney at $163.00 per hour). Signed by Chief Judge Terry L Wooten on 01/31/2013.(bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Mary L. Weathers,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner
)
of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________ )

C/A No.: 3:10-cv-00272-TLW
ORDER

On December 20, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access
to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2412, on the basis that the position taken by Defendant,
Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”), in this action was not substantially
justified. (Doc. #29). In the motion, plaintiff’s counsel seeks reimbursement in the total amount of the
amount of $6,071.75 (37.25 hours of work by the attorney at $163.00 per hour). (Doc. #29). Defendant
filed a Response on January 6, 2012, in which he contends that Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees
should be denied because the government’s position in this matter was substantially justified. (Doc.
#30). Defendant further argues that, in the event this Court grants Plaintiff’s motion, any fees awarded
may only be awarded to the Plaintiff, and not to her attorney. (Doc. #30). Plaintiff filed a Reply to
Defendant’s Response on January 17, 2012. (Doc. #31).
Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in certain civil actions
against the United States unless it finds that the government’s position was substantially justified or that
special circumstances make the award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). District courts have discretion
to determine a reasonable fee award and whether that award should be made in excess of the statutory
cap. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988); May v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 176, 177 (4th Cir. 1991).
The standard to be applied in determining whether the Commissioner was “substantially
justified” in terminating social security benefits, for purposes of determining whether award of attorney’s

1

fees under the EAJA is warranted, is whether there was arguably substantial evidence to support the
Commissioner’s position, not whether there was some evidence to support the position. Anderson v.
Heckler, 756 F.2d 1011 (4th Cir. 1984).
In this case, this Court entered an Order on September 21, 2011 reversing the decision of the
Commissioner under Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanding the case to the Commissioner
for further proceedings. (Doc. #26). While the reversal of an agency decision for lack of substantial
evidence does not raise a presumption that the agency was not substantially justified, after careful
review, this Court believes on the record before it that an award of attorney’s fees is appropriate in this
case.
Based on the foregoing and after carefully considering the briefs and materials submitted by the
parties, the Court overrules the Defendant’s Response (Doc. #30) opposing the Plaintiff’s motion for
attorneys fees in part. The Court grants Defendant’s request that the attorney’s fees be awarded only to
the Plaintiff, and not to her attorney. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 2526.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to the Equal
Access to Justice Act (Doc. #29) is GRANTED in the amount of $6,071.75 (37.25 hours of work by the
attorney at $163.00 per hour). The Defendant is hereby directed to pay to Plaintiff the award of

attorney’s fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Terry L. Wooten
Terry L. Wooten
Chief United States District Judge
January 31, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

2