Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security, 849 F.3d 647

Background

Clark (plaintiff) moved for EAJA attorney fees after remand, seeking $6,790.52 based on 34.75 attorney hours at $176.13/hr (CPI-adjusted) and paralegal time at $100/hr.
The requested attorney rate exceeded the $125 statutory EAJA cap; Clark relied primarily on the Midwest Urban CPI to justify a cost-of-living adjustment and later included counsel Olinsky’s affidavit reflecting his Syracuse, NY rate.
The Commissioner objected, arguing CPI alone is insufficient under Bryant and urging a $140/hr prevailing local rate based on Western District of Kentucky decisions.
The district court awarded fees but denied the full CPI-adjusted rate, concluding Bryant requires evidence that the requested rate aligns with prevailing local rates; it awarded $140/hr.
Clark appealed, arguing (1) Glenn’s dicta supports the CPI-only approach and (2) the CPI alone can justify increasing the statutory cap without additional local-rate evidence.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court’s $140/hr award, holding the district court reasonably required local prevailing-rate evidence in addition to CPI-based inflation adjustments.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CPI alone justifies EAJA cost-of-living increase above $125/hr	CPI (Midwest Urban) is sufficient to raise the cap; Glenn supports CPI use	Bryant requires additional evidence showing requested rate matches prevailing local rates	CPI alone insufficient; district court properly required local prevailing-rate evidence and did not abuse discretion
Whether Glenn controls the proper EAJA rate here	Glenn described Olinsky’s rate as modest and reasonable, so CPI-based rate should apply	Glenn was dicta and concerned substantial justification, not fee rates; different district/locale	Glenn’s dicta is not controlling; district court correctly rejected it as dispositive
Whether district court erred in awarding $140/hr instead of full CPI-adjusted rate	Court lacked authority to set arbitrary cost-of-living amount without applying CPI adjustment as submitted	District court relied on local precedent showing $140 as prevailing market rate	District court acted within discretion in awarding $140/hr given absence of evidence supporting higher local market rate
Whether Bryant should be limited or clarified to allow CPI-only adjustments when increasing EAJA cap	CPI-only approach applies to cap adjustment and lodestar separately; Bryant’s extra-evidence rule is inapplicable here	Bryant’s requirement for satisfactory evidence (beyond affidavits/CPI) of local prevailing rates remains applicable	Sixth Circuit affirmed Bryant’s requirement; district court did not abuse discretion and might have better articulated CPI use but outcome stands

Key Cases Cited

Bryant v. Commissioner of Social Security, 578 F.3d 443 (6th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff must produce satisfactory evidence beyond attorney affidavit/CPI that requested rates align with local prevailing rates)
Glenn v. Commissioner of Social Security, 763 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2014) (discussed counsel’s rate as modest; fee comment treated as dicta and not controlling here)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (burden on fee-seeker to produce evidence supporting requested rates)
Chipman v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 781 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1986) (EAJA $125 is a ceiling, not a floor)
Sprinkle v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2015) (CPI useful but fee awards must not exceed prevailing market rates to avoid windfalls)
Castaneda-Castillo v. Holder, 723 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2013) (regional CPI used to calculate cost-of-living adjustment where unobjected)
Harris v. Sullivan, 968 F.2d 263 (2d Cir. 1992) (statutory cap should be adjusted for inflation using CPI)
DeWalt v. Sullivan, 963 F.2d 27 (3d Cir. 1992) (CPI-ALL appropriate for adjusting statutory cap for inflation)
Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2005) (method for calculating appropriate cost-of-living increases using CPI)