Cowan v. Social Security Administration Commissioner, 2:11-cv-02181

Plaintiff Eva Cowan appealed the Commissioner’s denial of Social Security benefits; the case was remanded on July 16, 2012, under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Cowan moves for EAJA attorney’s fees totaling $4,820.25 for 18.00 hours in 2011 at $174.00/hour, 2.15 hours in 2012 at $180.00/hour, and 17.35 paralegal hours at $75.00/hour; defendant objects to hours claimed and replies filed by the parties followed by a hearing on January 24, 2013.
The court analyzes whether Cowan is the prevailing party and thus eligible for EAJA fees, finding her prevailing party status due to the sentence-four remand.
The court notes that EAJA awards may coexist with potential § 406(b) fees and requires contemporaneous time records with reasonable rates and time entries.
The court subsequently adjusts the fee request, addressing rate justification, pre- and post-complaint work, duplicative tasks, clerical tasks, and the method of payment, culminating in a recommended EAJA award of $4,288.50.
The recommendation directs the EAJA award to be paid to Cowan (not directly out of past-due benefits) and notes the fee will be considered alongside any future § 406(b) determination to prevent double recovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to EAJA fees as prevailing party	Cowan prevails due to remand under sentence four.	Not explicitly opposed; argues only reductions and proper administration.	Cowan is the prevailing party entitled to EAJA fees.
Reasonableness and rate for attorney and paralegal work	Rates of $174/hour (2011) and $180/hour (2012) are justified; paralegal $75/hour reasonable.	No explicit challenge to rates; limitations may apply without opposition.	Rates approved: $174/hour (2011), $180/hour (2012); paralegal $75/hour.
Compensability of pre-complaint work	Pre-complaint time reflects necessary case familiarization and preparation.	Objects to pre-complaint hours as compensable.	Pre-complaint time compensable.
Duplicative and clerical tasks	Duplicative work is justified due to counsel’s visual impairment and need for paralegal assistance.	Many hours are duplicative or clerical and should be cut.	Duplicative work largely justified; clerical tasks reduced by 5.25 paralegal hours; other hours upheld with adjustments.
Payment allocation and overall award	EAJA award should be paid to counsel for plaintiff's benefit.	No opposition; award administered consistent with precedent.	Award to be paid to the plaintiff; total recommended EAJA award adjusts to $4,288.50.

Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002) (fee-shifting policies and windfall avoidance in EAJA awards)
Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993) (prevailing party status under social security remand framework)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (reasonable attorney's fee evaluation; factor-based approach)
Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877 (1989) (pre-commitment fees and ability to recover EAJA hours before district action)
Granville House, Inc. v. Department of HEW, 813 F.2d 881 (8th Cir. 1987) (clerical vs. non-clerical tasks for EAJA eligibility)
Stockton v. Shalala, 36 F.3d 49 (8th Cir. 1994) (justification for paralegal assistance in representation)
Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988) (limits on fee awards under fee-shifting statutes)
Meyers v. Heckler, 625 F. Supp. 228 (S.D. Ohio 1985) (considerations in determining reasonable fees)
Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 128 S. Ct. 2007 (2008) (contemporaneous time records and billing standards)