Morgan v. Dudek, 4:24-cv-01183

Mary M. sought judicial review after being denied Social Security disability benefits, and the court reversed and remanded her case for further proceedings.
Following the remand, Mary M. filed an Application for Award of Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), seeking $2,407.00 for 11.6 hours of attorney work at $207.50 per hour.
Defendant, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, filed a response stating no objection to the fee request.
Plaintiff provided uncontested evidence justifying a higher hourly rate due to increased cost of living.
The court considered the statutory requirements of the EAJA and found Plaintiff eligible for the fee award, to be paid directly to her, subject to any pre-existing federal debts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to EAJA fees after remand	Fees are warranted as Plaintiff prevailed on remand	No objection to Plaintiff’s request	Plaintiff entitled to fees under EAJA
Hourly fee above statutory maximum due to COL	Cost of living increase justifies above $125/hr rate	No objection, evidence is uncontested	Higher hourly rate granted
Payment should be made directly to Plaintiff	EAJA requires fee paid to Plaintiff	No argument raised	Fee to be paid to Plaintiff, not attorney
Fee subject to offset for pre-existing federal debt	Follows Astrue v. Ratliff; subject to set-off	No objection	Fee subject to offset for any Plaintiff debts

Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (Sentences four remands entitle prevailing party to EAJA fees)
Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (EAJA fees payable to prevailing party, subject to federal debt offset)
Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503 (Court may increase hourly rate for attorney’s fees under EAJA due to cost of living increases)
McNulty v. Sullivan, 886 F.2d 1074 (Increasing rate above statutory ceiling under EAJA is within court’s discretion)