Banks v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:15-cv-00400

Background

Plaintiff Andrew Banks prevailed in a Social Security appeal and moved for EAJA attorney’s fees seeking $10,393 for 54.7 hours; after additional 3.2 hours in reply the request totaled $11,001 for 57.9 hours.
Commissioner opposed only the amount, arguing hours were excessive and the CPI adjustment should be regional (Midwest Urban) rather than national (All Urban).
Banks supported the requested rate with an affidavit showing comparable local prevailing rates and used a slightly reduced All‑Urban CPI figure ($190/hr).
The parties disputed whether an EAJA award may be paid directly to counsel under Banks’s assignment, or whether the award must be made to the litigant and is subject to government offset for preexisting debts.
The Commissioner offered to pay counsel directly only if the Treasury verifies Banks has no offsettable debts; the Court followed precedent requiring verification before directing payment to counsel.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were the billed hours (57.9) reasonable under EAJA?	Banks: hours were reasonably expended given a 416‑page record, counsel’s need to review it (did not represent client at admin.), and comparable awards in the district.	Commissioner: 54.7 hours (initial) excessive; opening, reply, and EAJA petition hours should be reduced (asks for 10‑hour cut).	Court: Hours fall within the district’s permissible range (40–60); denied reduction.
Was the requested enhanced hourly rate ($190) proper using national CPI?	Banks: used slightly reduced All‑Urban CPI and provided local affidavit showing comparable prevailing rates.	Commissioner: regional Midwest Urban CPI ($186.32) is more appropriate, reducing award slightly.	Court: Circuit law leaves index choice to district courts; requested $190 hourly rate is consistent with local awards and approved.
Must EAJA award be made to the litigant and subject to offset despite an assignment to counsel?	Banks: argued Ratliff does not bar directing payment to counsel under an assignment.	Commissioner: Ratliff requires awards to litigants and allows offset; will pay counsel only if no offsettable debt exists.	Court: Follows circuit precedent interpreting Ratliff — award belongs to litigant and is subject to offset; will direct payment to counsel only if Commissioner verifies no preexisting offsettable debt.
Amount and payment logistics of EAJA award	Banks: sought $11,001 total and direct payment to counsel per assignment if no offsets.	Commissioner: contests amount elements above; seeks verification before paying counsel.	Court: Granted EAJA fees of $11,001 payable within 70 days; if no offsettable debt verified, Commissioner shall pay counsel per assignment.

Key Cases Cited

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (fee applicant must show hours reasonably expended; exclude excessive/redundant hours)
Sprinkle v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 421 (district courts may use national or regional CPI; claimant must show prevailing community rates)
Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (EAJA fee awards are payable to the litigant and may be offset for government debts)
Matthews‑Sheets v. Astrue, 653 F.3d 560 (discusses effect of assignment post‑Ratliff; notes debt offset concern)
Wickens v. Shell Oil Co., 620 F.3d 747 (cites Ratliff on EAJA awards being payable to litigant and subject to offset)