North v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 29

ORDER granting 26 Motion for Attorney Fees, awarding Plaintiff the amount of $6,435.00 under the EAJA. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph R McCrorey on 10/02/2013.(bshr, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

KATHY MECHELLE NORTH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,1 ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:11-2250-JRM

ORDER

This matter is before the undersigned2 upon motion of Plaintiff for attorney’s fees pursuant
to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Plaintiff seeks an award of
$6,435.00 (39 hours of work at $165.00 per hour) in attorney’s fees. Plaintiff asserts she is entitled
to an award under the EAJA because she was the prevailing party and Defendant’s position in the
Social Security disability appeal was not substantially justified. ECF No. 26. The Commissioner
contends that the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion because the Government’s position in this case
was substantially justified. Alternatively, the Commissioner argues that if the Court finds that the
Commissioner’s position is not substantially justified, the Court should direct that any such award
be made payable to Plaintiff (not to Plaintiff’s attorney). ECF No. 27.
1

Carolyn W. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 14,
2013. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin should be
substituted for Michael J. Astrue as Defendant in this lawsuit.
2

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Local Civil Rule 83.VII.02 DSC, and the consent of the parties,
the case was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for further proceedings and entry of
judgment.

Under the provisions of EAJA, parties prevailing against the United States are entitled to an
award of attorney’s fees unless the Government can carry its burden of demonstrating that its
litigation position was substantially justified. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Crawford v. Sullivan, 935
F.2d 655, 658 (4th Cir.1991). “Substantial justification” is more than “merely undeserving of
sanctions for frivolousness” and the Government’s position must be “reasonable ... both in law and
in fact.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565–566 (1988).
This action was remanded to the Commissioner because it was unclear that the ALJ properly
evaluated Plaintiff’s credibility as it did not appear that he considered all evidence of record. It was
also remanded because it was unclear that the ALJ’s determination concerning Plaintiff’s past
relevant work was supported by substantial evidence and correct under controlling law. The Court
finds that Defendant cannot carry its burden of showing that its position was substantially justified.
Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under the EAJA.
Defendant has not challenged Plaintiff’s asserted hours or rate of compensation. The Court
has, however, reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and supporting documentation and finds that the total fee
requested, hours expended, and hourly rate are reasonable. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789
(2002).
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants an attorney’s fee award to Plaintiff under the
EAJA in the amount of $6,435.00. It is ordered that the Commissioner is directed to make the

2

check payable to Plaintiff3 and to deliver the check to Plaintiff’s counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Joseph R. McCrorey
United States Magistrate Judge
October 2, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

3

See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2524 (2010).
3