Perdomo De Mirabel v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:20-cv-24563

Plaintiff Martha Perdomo de Mirabel sued the Acting Commissioner seeking review of denial of Social Security benefits on November 5, 2020.
The Commissioner consented to a sentence-four remand; the court reversed and remanded on October 26, 2021, making Plaintiff a prevailing party.
Plaintiff moved for EAJA attorney’s fees on February 16, 2022, seeking $1,424 in fees (6.5 hours across 2020–2022 at CPI-adjusted rates) and $400 in filing costs.
The Commissioner did not oppose the requested hourly rates or the $400 filing fee but argued 2.4 hours (preparing the EAJA time sheet) were clerical and non-compensable.
The magistrate judge found the government not substantially justified, reduced compensable hours by 2.4 as clerical, accepted CPI-adjusted rates, and recommended awarding $882.20 in fees plus $400 costs (total $1,282.20), payable to counsel unless Plaintiff owes federal debt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to EAJA fees and costs	Plaintiff sought EAJA fees and $400 filing fee after successful sentence-four remand	Commissioner consented to remand; did not contest entitlement to fees/costs generally	Plaintiff is a prevailing party and entitled to recover EAJA fees and the $400 filing fee
Government substantial justification	Fees should be awarded because government position was not substantially justified	Government bore the burden to show substantial justification; did not do so	Court found government not substantially justified and no special circumstances barring fees
Compensable hours (clerical work)	Counsel billed 6.5 hours total including 2.4 hours preparing the EAJA time sheet	2.4 hours preparing time sheet is clerical/administrative and not compensable under EAJA	Court excluded 2.4 hours as non‑compensable administrative work; allowed 4.7 hours total as reasonable
Hourly rates (cost‑of‑living adjustment)	Requested CPI‑adjusted rates for 2020–2022 above $125 cap	Commissioner did not object to requested adjusted rates	Court accepted CPI adjustments and approved the requested hourly rates for those years

Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732 (11th Cir. 2008) (discussing EAJA award of costs and fees)
Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010) (definition of "prevailing party" in fee statutes)
Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993) (sentence‑four remand confers prevailing‑party status)
Norman v. Hous. Auth. of City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir. 1988) (court may use its experience to assess reasonable attorney fees)
Stratton v. Bowen, 827 F.2d 1447 (11th Cir. 1987) (government bears burden to show substantial justification)