Black v. Social Security Administration Commissioner, 2:10-cv-02137

Plaintiff Gerard Black appealed the SSA Commissioner’s denial of benefits; case remanded on June 9, 2011 under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Plaintiff moved for EAJA attorney’s fees and costs seeking $2,229.25 for 12.45 hours at $165/hr and 3.50 paralegal hours at $50/hr.
Defendant filed no objection to the EAJA fee request; court treats lack of opposition as admission that denial was not substantially justified.
Court determines plaintiff is a prevailing party entitled to EAJA fees, in addition to any future § 406(b) recovery.
Court imposes a living-cost adjustment: hourly attorney rate increased to $165.00 due to CPI evidence; paralegal rate set at $50.00/hr.
Court disallows certain paralegal time (some tasks could be done by support staff) and reduces total compensable hours, but allows 10.50 hours for preparing the appeal brief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether EAJA fees are appropriate for a prevailing claimant	Black prevailed; government denials not substantially justified.	No specific objection; not argued here.	Yes; plaintiff is prevailing and entitled to EAJA fees.
Whether an increased hourly rate applies due to cost of living	CPI evidence supports higher than $125/hour.	EAJA rate capped unless justification shown.	Yes; $165.00/hour approved due to cost-of-living increase.
Whether paralegal time is compensable under EAJA	Paralegal time should be compensable at $50/hr.	Some paralegal work could be performed by support staff; not compensable.	Award reduced by 0.50 paralegal hours; remaining paralegal hours compensated at $50/hr.
Whether requested hours for EAJA work are reasonable	Hours for appellate brief preparation are reasonable given 650+ page record.	Excessive time for certain tasks; reduction warranted.	Compensable hours adjusted; 12.45 attorney hours and 2.50 paralegal hours approved, with adjustments noted for reasonableness.
To whom the EAJA award should be payable	EAJA fee should be awarded to the plaintiff’s counsel as prevailing party.	Not objecting; standard practice as per statute.	EAJA award payable to plaintiff, not plaintiff’s counsel.

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. Supreme Court (1983)) (reasonableness of fee; contemporaneous time records required)
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (U.S. Supreme Court (2002)) (fee shifting and limits; no windfall from dual fee systems)
Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503 (8th Cir. 1990) (cost-of-living increases may justify higher than $75/hour)
Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (U.S. Supreme Court (1988)) (EAJA caps and reasonableness of fees)
Richlin Security Service Company v. Chertoff, 128 S. Ct. 2007 (U.S. Supreme Court (2008)) (paralegal time recoverability under EAJA)
Granville House, Inc. v. Department of HEW, 813 F.2d 881 (8th Cir. 1987) (tasks that could be performed by support staff are not compensable)