Doyle v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER granting 22 Motion for Attorney Fees. It is ordered that Plaintiff is awarded $8222.81 in attorney's fees plus costs in the amount of $350.00 as requested. The fees must be paid to Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 12/9/2013.(gnan )

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

EDITH R. DOYLE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
1
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
)
SECURITY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION 4:12-cv-01316-TER

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant
to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. 2412(d). Plaintiff seeks an award of
$8,222.81 in EAJA fees at the rate of $183.75 per hour for 44.25 hours of work on the grounds that
she is a prevailing party entitled to attorney’s fees by the EAJA. Additionally, Plaintiff requests
costs in the amount of $350.00. (Doc. #24). While Defendant contests the awarding of such fees
asserting the government’s position was substantially justified, Defendant did not object to the
amount of EAJA fees requested. However, Defendant asserts that “[a]ny EAJA fees should therefore
be awarded to Plaintiff and not to Plaintiff’s attorney.” (Doc. #24). Plaintiff filed a reply to the
Defendant’s response. (Doc. #25).

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 the Defendant in this suit. No further action need
be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social
Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Plaintiff’s initial request for Disability Insurance Benefits was denied and Plaintiff sought
review of the Commissioner’s decision in this Court. Plaintiff was ultimately successful, obtaining
a judgment filed September 12, 2013, that reversed and remanded the case to the Commissioner for
a new hearing pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §405(g). (Docs. #18 and #19).
Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney's fees to a prevailing party2 in certain civil
actions against the United States unless it finds that the government's position was substantially
justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The 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, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490
(1988); May v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 176, 177 (4th Cir.1991).
The district court has broad discretion to set the attorney fee amount. “[A] district court will
always retain substantial discretion in fixing the amount of an EAJA award. Exorbitant, unfounded,
or procedurally defective fee applications ... are matters that the district court can recognize and
discount.” Hyatt v. North Carolina Dep't of Human Res., 315 F.3d 239, 254 (4th Cir.2002) ( citing
Comm'r v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163, 110 S.Ct. 2316, 110 L.Ed.2d 134 (1990)). Moreover, the court
should not only consider the “position taken by the United States in the civil action,” but also the
“action or failure to act by the agency upon which the civil action is based.” 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d)(2)(D), as amended by P.L. 99–80, § 2(c)(2)(B).

2

A party who wins a remand pursuant to sentence four of the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), is a prevailing party for EAJA purposes. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292,
300–302, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993). The remand in this case was made pursuant
to sentence four.
2

After a through review of the record and applying this standard to the facts of this case, the
court concludes that the position of the Commissioner was not substantially justified. Plaintiff has
made a proper showing under the EAJA that the fees and costs sought are proper.
Based on the foregoing and after considering the briefs and materials submitted by the
parties, it is ordered that Plaintiff is awarded $8222.81 in attorney's fees plus costs in the amount of
$350.00 as requested.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United Stated Magistrate Judge
December 9, 2013
Florence, South Carolina

3

The fees must be paid to Plaintiff. See Astrue v. Ratliff, –––U.S. ––––, ––––, 130 S.Ct.
2521, 2527, 177 L.Ed.2d 91 (2010) (holding that the plain text of the EAJA requires that
attorney's fees be awarded to the litigant, thus subjecting EAJA fees to offset of any pre-existing
federal debts); see also Stephens v. Astrue, 565 F.3d 131, 139 (4th Cir.2009) (same).
3