Jones v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
3:15-cv-03108
W.D. Ark.May 15, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Shane L. Jones appealed the SSA's denial of disability benefits to federal court on October 30, 2015.
- The district court reversed and remanded the case to the SSA pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on February 8, 2017.
- Jones moved for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) on May 8, 2017, seeking $1,189.31 (6.10 attorney hours at $155/hr, 2.90 paralegal hours at $75/hr, and $26.31 postage).
- The Commissioner (Acting) did not oppose the fee request and conceded Jones was the prevailing party and that the denial was not substantially justified.
- The court found the CPI-South justified an enhanced EAJA attorney rate of $155 for 2015–2017, and awarded the requested attorney, paralegal fees, and costs.
- The opinion notes Astrue v. Ratliff requires EAJA fees be awarded to the prevailing party (the claimant) unless the claimant validly assigned the fee and owes no federal debt, in which case payment may be made directly to counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones is a prevailing party entitled to EAJA fees | Jones sought EAJA fees after sentence-four remand | Commissioner did not contest prevailing-party status | Court treated lack of opposition as admission; Jones is prevailing party |
| Whether the government’s denial was substantially justified | Jones argued denial was not substantially justified | Commissioner raised no substantial-justification defense | Court concluded government was not substantially justified |
| Appropriate hourly rate under EAJA (statutory ceiling $125) | Jones requested $155/hr based on CPI-South cost-of-living adjustments | Commissioner did not object to $155/hr | Court found CPI-South justified $155/hr for 2015–2017 and awarded it |
| To whom EAJA fees should be paid (claimant vs. attorney) | Jones sought fee award (implicitly to counsel) | Commissioner noted Ratliff requires award to claimant; direct payment to counsel only if valid assignment and no federal debt | Court followed Ratliff: award to plaintiff, but direct payment to counsel permitted if valid assignment and no federal debt |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127 (8th Cir.) (Secretary bears burden to show denial was substantially justified)
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002) (EAJA and Section 406(b) fee awards may both be available; EAJA offsets 406(b))
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993) (timing for EAJA application tied to final judgment or expiration of appeal period)
- Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010) (EAJA fees are awarded to the prevailing party; direct payment to counsel requires assignment and no federal debt)
- Cornella v. Schweiker, 728 F.2d 978 (8th Cir.) (EAJA intended to shift litigation expenses for unreasonable government action)
- Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503 (8th Cir.) (CPI may justify EAJA rate increases)