Fisk v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
5:13-cv-05274
W.D. Ark.Mar 27, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Joshua M. Fisk obtained a sentence-four remand of his Social Security case; the Court previously entered judgment remanding to the Commissioner.
- Fisk moved for EAJA attorney’s fees of $7,385.20 for 39.82 hours of district-court work: 7.22 hours in 2013 at $183/hr and 32.60 hours in 2014 at $186/hr.
- The Commissioner did not oppose the requested dollar amount but the Court independently reviewed reasonableness under EAJA.
- The Court applied EAJA standards (28 U.S.C. § 2412), Hensley factors, and cost-of-living adjustment using CPI–South per Amended General Order 39 to justify rates above the $125 statutory baseline.
- The Court excluded certain time as clerical (support staff tasks) and reduced excessive or unsubstantiated attorney time reviewing a 487‑page transcript and drafting routine filings.
- After deductions (0.07 hours from 2013; 5.4 hours from 2014), the Court recommended an EAJA award of $6,367.65 to be paid to the Plaintiff, subject to 42 U.S.C. § 406 offset rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fisk is a prevailing party entitled to EAJA fees | Fisk obtained a sentence‑four remand, so he is a prevailing party | Commissioner did not contest prevailing‑party status | Held: Fisk is a prevailing party under Shalala v. Schaefer; eligible for EAJA fees |
| Whether Commissioner’s denial was substantially justified | Implicit: remand granted, so position not substantially justified | Commissioner bore burden to show substantial justification but did not | Held: Court proceeded to award fees because Commissioner did not meet burden |
| Proper hourly rate under EAJA (above $125) | Counsel requested $183 (2013) and $186 (2014) based on CPI–South increases | No objection to rates by Commissioner | Held: CPI–South supports the requested adjusted rates; rates approved |
| Reasonableness of claimed hours | Counsel claimed 39.82 hours for district-court work including clerical tasks, transcript review, brief drafting, and EAJA petition | Commissioner did not object to amount; Court must independently assess reasonableness | Held: Court deducted 0.07 hrs (2013) and 5.4 hrs (2014) for clerical tasks, excessive transcript review time, and EAJA petition prep; awarded 34.35 compensable hours (total $6,367.65) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127 (8th Cir. 1986) (burden on Commissioner to show substantial justification for denial of benefits)
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993) (sentence‑four remand recipient is a prevailing party for EAJA purposes)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (factors for determining reasonable attorney’s fees and need for contemporaneous time records)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988) (EAJA is not an unlimited fee-shifting statute)
- Decker v. Sullivan, 976 F.2d 456 (8th Cir. 1992) (courts may ensure accurate fee calculations even when issue not raised by parties)
- Granville House, Inc. v. Department of HEW, 813 F.2d 881 (8th Cir. 1987) (clerical work performed by support staff is not compensable under fee statutes)
- Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503 (8th Cir. 1990) (CPI evidence may justify hourly rates above EAJA statutory ceiling)
- Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010) (EAJA awards are payable to the prevailing party, subject to offset for past-due benefits under § 406)