Butler v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 30

ORDER granting 27 Motion for Attorney Fees: The court orders that Butler be awarded $3,191.25 in attorney's fees and $22.10 in expenses for a total award of $3,213.35. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 5/11/2016.(gnan )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Carolyn G. Butler,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting
)
Commissioner, Social Security,
)
)
Defendant. )
)

C/A No. 4:14-4441-TMC

ORDER

On May 3, 2016, Plaintiff Carolyn G. Butler (“Butler”) filed a motion for attorney's fees
pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, on the basis that she was
the prevailing party and the position taken by the Commissioner in this action was not substantially
justified. (ECF No. 27). The Commissioner responded on May 10, 2016, stating she did not object
to Butler’s request for attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 28).
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 an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).1 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 (1988); May v. Sullivan,
936 F.2d 176, 177 (4th Cir. 1991).
The district courts also have broad discretion to set the attorney fee amount. In determining
the fee award, “[e]xorbitant, unfounded, or procedurally defective fee applications . . . are matters

1

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 (1993). The remand in this case was made pursuant to sentence four.

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 (1990)).
Additionally, 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).
Applying this standard to the facts of this case, the court concludes that the Commissioner’s
position was not substantially justified. Therefore, after a thorough review of the record in this case,
the court finds that Butler has made a proper showing under the EAJA and, therefore grants her
motion for attorney’s fees.
Butler seeks an hourly rate in excess of $125 per hour to adjust for an increase in the cost
of living allowance. Specifically, Butler seeks an award of $185.00 per hour for 8.00 attorney hours
($1,480.00) and $92.50 per hour for 18.5 hours of paralegal hours ($1,711.25) for a total fee of
$3,191.25, plus expenses in the amount of $22.10. The Commissioner has not objected to Butler’s
calculation of the hourly rate and the court finds the calculation reasonable.
Based on the foregoing, and after considering the briefs and materials submitted by the
parties, the court orders that Butler be awarded $3,191.25 in attorney’s fees2 and $22.10 in expenses
for a total award of $3,213.35.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Timothy M. Cain

2

The court notes that the fees must be paid to Plaintiff. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586
(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).
2

United States District Judge
May 11, 2016
Anderson, South Carolina

3