Filed: Apr. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 16, 2014
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JOSEPH G. SCOVILLE, Magistrate Judge. This was a social security action brought under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) seeking review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits (DIB). On January 31, 2014, this court entered a judgment reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding this matter to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further administrative proceedings. The matt
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JOSEPH G. SCOVILLE, Magistrate Judge. This was a social security action brought under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) seeking review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits (DIB). On January 31, 2014, this court entered a judgment reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding this matter to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further administrative proceedings. The matte..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSEPH G. SCOVILLE, Magistrate Judge.
This was a social security action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits (DIB). On January 31, 2014, this court entered a judgment reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding this matter to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings. The matter is now before the court on plaintiff's application for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (docket # 20). Defendant does not oppose the motion. (Id.). For the reasons set forth herein, I recommend that plaintiff's motion be granted in part and denied in part, and that a judgment be entered in plaintiff's favor in the amount of $3,158.75.
Discussion
The EAJA provides in relevant part:
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 Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 591-93 (2010). The Sixth Circuit has identified three conditions which must be met to recover attorney's fees under the EAJA: (1) the claimant must be a prevailing party; (2) the government's position must be without substantial justification; and (3) there are no special circumstances which would warrant a denial of fees. See DeLong v. Commissioner, No. 13-1990, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 1378136, at * 2 (6th Cir. Apr. 9, 2014); Marshall v. Commissioner, 444 F.3d 837, 840 (6th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff is a prevailing party under this court's judgment remanding this matter to the Commissioner. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 298 (1993). Plaintiff is a financially eligible person under the EAJA. Defendant offers no special circumstances which might warrant denial of fees and has made no attempt to satisfy the burden of demonstrating that the government's position was substantially justified. See Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401, 414 (2004); Peck v. Commissioner, 165 F. App'x 443, 446 (6th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney's fees under the EAJA.
1. Hours Claimed
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has cautioned lower courts against "rubber stamping" EAJA fee applications. See Begley v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 966 F.2d 196, 200 (6th Cir. 1992). The EAJA requires "an itemized statement from [the] attorney . . . representing or appearing in behalf of the party stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other expenses were computed." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). Plaintiff seeks compensation for 18.05 hours in attorney time. (docket # 20, ID# 665). This is reasonable for the work performed.
2. Hourly Rate
The EAJA generally caps the hourly rate for attorney's fees at $125 per hour. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). "[T]he statutory rate is a ceiling and not a floor." Chipman v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 781 F.2d 545, 547 (6th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff seeks to recover at an hourly rate of $187.13 (docket # 20, ID#s 666, 675), or $183.88 (Id., ID# 677), or $181.63 (Id., ID# 667). The requested rates are well above the statutory cap. The EAJA specifies that "attorney's 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). The Supreme Court has determined that the statutory $125 per hour cap applies "in the mine run of cases." Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002). Judge Quist has endorsed a rate of up to $175.00 per hour as a reasonable rate based on the State Bar's Economics of Law Practice in Michigan survey. See Burton v. Commissioner, No. 1:12-cv-669, 2013 WL 3283644, at * 2 (W.D. Mich. June 28, 2013); Mueller v. Commissioner, No. 1:09-cv-695, 2011 WL 2648703, at * 2 (W.D. Mich. July 6, 2011). Accordingly, the higher rate of $175.00 is used herein. Multiplying the 18.05 hours expended by counsel and the $175.00 per hour rate results in a total of $3,158.75 for attorney's fees.
Recommended Disposition
For the reasons set forth herein, I recommend that the court enter an order granting plaintiff's motion in part and denying it in part, and that the court enter a judgment in plaintiff's favor against defendant in the amount of $3,158.75.
