Norton v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
4:10-cv-04148
| W.D. Ark. | Feb 21, 2012Background
- Plaintiff Sharron L. Norton sought EAJA attorney’s fees after remand of SSA disability denial.
- The case was remanded on October 18, 2011 pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- Plaintiff filed EAJA fee motion on January 13, 2012 seeking $3,630.00 for 24.2 hours at $150/hour.
- Defendant did not oppose prevailing party status but objected to requested hours.
- Court approved $150.00/hour based on CPI-South and awarded 24.20 hours, totaling $3,630.00.
- Rulings addressed whether certain tasks were compensable and whether fees should be paid to plaintiff or assigned attorney.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party status under EAJA | Norton prevailed by remand; fees justified | Not directly stated; objections focus on hours | Plaintiff is prevailing party; EAJA applies |
| Reasonableness of hourly rate under CPI | Rate of $150/hour justified by CPI-South | Not objected to on rate basis | $150/hour authorized by CPI-South; rate approved |
| Compensability of 24.20 hours | Hours reasonably incurred for appeal preparation | Some tasks clerical or administrative; challenge to certain entries | 24.20 hours awarded after scrutiny; non-compensable entries rejected or not reduced beyond reasonables |
| Clerical or administrative tasks vs attorney work | Some entries legitimate attorney review and client communications | Certain tasks allegedly clerical or administrative | Entries found non-purely clerical; compensable where evidencing attorney effort |
| Payment destination of fees under Ratliff | Fees to plaintiff as prevailing party; possible assignment to attorney | Ratliff directs payment to party unless valid assignment or debt obligations exist | Fees awarded to Plaintiff; may be paid to attorney if valid assignment and no debt to government |
Key Cases Cited
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (U.S. 2002) (EAJA and 406(b) interplay; offset of EAJA against 406(b))
- Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503 (8th Cir. 1990) (CPI-based rate adjustments under EAJA)
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1993) (timing of EAJA applications and final judgments)
- Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (U.S. 2010) (fees under EAJA awarded to prevailing party; offset mechanics)
- Cornella v. Schweiker, 728 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1984) (EAJA purpose; shifting expenses to government)
- Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127 (8th Cir. 1986) (burden on Secretary to prove substantial justification)