Caylor v. Astrue
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4850
M.D. Fla.2011Background
- Plaintiff Julita Caylor seeks EAJA attorney fees after a sentence-four remand in her SSA case before MD Fla (Case No. 3:09-cv-815-J-TEM).
- Plaintiff filed EAJA petition on Nov. 30, 2010; defendant did not respond.
- Court finds Plaintiff prevailed and the Commissioner erred in applying legal standards, satisfying prevailing party and substantial justification requirements.
- Court approves an hourly rate of $169.51 for 2009–2010 based on CPI considerations for Florida attorneys.
- Hours claimed total 21.65, including limited pre-complaint time, which the court deems reasonable for the civil action.
- Court addresses assignment of EAJA fees and payment mechanics in light of Ratliff and Reeves/ Panola/ Reeves precedents; awards fees payable to Plaintiff with potential government offset discretion.
- Costs of filing $350 deemed reasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) and to be reimbursed to Plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Caylor is a prevailing party eligible for EAJA fees. | Caylor obtained remand and benefits eligibility; substantial justification questioned. | Not necessary to respond; standard applies equally to prevailing party status. | Yes; Caylor is a prevailing party under EAJA. |
| Whether the negotiated hourly rate is reasonable. | Rate of $169.51/hour reasonable given CPI for FL attorneys. | Cap at $125/hour unless special factors justify higher rate. | Rate $169.51/hour approved based on cost-of-living considerations. |
| Whether 21.65 hours are reasonably expended, including pre-complaint hours. | Hours reasonably related to litigation, including pre-Complaint preparation. | Not addressed; rely on reasonableness standards. | Hours deemed reasonable; pre-complaint hours compensable under EAJA in this context. |
| Who should receive the EAJA fees and how offsets are handled. | Fees assigned to Plaintiff by Assignment; payment to counsel possible if no government debt. | Ratliff permits offset against government debts; payment direction is discretionary. | Fees awarded to Plaintiff; government offsets may reduce payment; payment to counsel contingent on debt status and government discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993) (prevailing party standard and entitlement to fees under EAJA)
- Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877 (1989) (remand as part of civil action may support EAJA fees; defining 'civil action' scope)
- Pollgreen v. Morris, 911 F.2d 527 (11th Cir.1990) (pre-complaint hours may be compensable when linked to litigation)
- Ratliff v. Astrue, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010) (EAJA fees may be awarded to prevailing party; offset possible for government debts)
- Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732 (11th Cir.2008) (confirms prevailing party is the plaintiff; fees may be charged to government or plaintiff per EAJA rules)
- Panola Land Buying Ass'n v. Clark, 844 F.2d 1506 (11th Cir.1988) (EAJA fees awarded to prevailing plaintiff, not plaintiff's counsel, unless assignment)
- Graham v. Astrue, - (-) ((not used; placeholder to indicate related EAJA authority not cited))