Coursey v. Commissioner of Social Security
843 F.3d 1095
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Coursey prevailed on judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s denial of benefits when the district court granted a joint motion to reverse in Sept. 2015.
- He moved for EAJA attorney fees seeking $185.18/hour, representing a CPI-adjusted increase over the EAJA statutory cap of $125/hour for Midwest 2015 cost-of-living.
- Commissioner opposed, arguing Coursey failed to show the requested rate was "in line with" prevailing market rates for comparable lawyers as required by Sixth Circuit precedent.
- Coursey submitted the BLS CPI and an affidavit describing his counsel’s qualifications and usual contingent fee in Syracuse, NY.
- The district court found the CPI alone insufficient to justify an above-cap fee for the Bowling Green, KY venue, but awarded $140/hour based on prior district-court findings in that venue.
- Coursey appealed; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Coursey’s contention that CPI alone should suffice and affirming the court’s $140/hour award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CPI alone can justify EAJA fees above $125/hour | CPI adjustment showing higher cost of living suffices to justify increase | CPI alone is insufficient without evidence of prevailing market rates in the community | CPI alone insufficient; plaintiff must also show requested rate aligns with prevailing market rates |
| Burden of proof for rate > $125 | COLA proof should be enough per plain statutory reading and some circuits | Plaintiff must produce evidence both of COLA and prevailing local market rates | Sixth Circuit requires competent evidence of both COLA and prevailing rates |
| Whether district court abused discretion in awarding $140/hour | Requested $185.18; district court should have granted full CPI-adjusted rate | District court reasonably relied on prior local awards and lack of market-rate evidence | No abuse of discretion; $140/hour affirmed |
| Whether district court conflated COLA and prevailing-rate analyses | Coursey alleged conflation | Court distinguished the two and required separate proofs | No conflation; court properly analyzed separately |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. Commissioner of Social Security, 578 F.3d 443 (6th Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to support EAJA rate increase)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (fees based on prevailing market rates for similar services)
- Glenn v. Commissioner of Social Security, 763 F.3d 494 (6th Cir.) (standard for EAJA fee awards reviewed)
- Sprinkle v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2015) (CPI suffices to show COLA but must still show prevailing-market alignment)