Porter v. Astrue
999 F. Supp. 2d 35
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiff Sarah A. Porter was denied SSI benefits after claiming disability from a car accident; the case was remanded to the SSA by this Court for failure to properly weigh her subjective complaints, medical records, and treating-source opinions.
- Plaintiff prevailed and seeks EAJA attorney fees; the parties agree she is a prevailing party and the Government’s position was not substantially justified, but they dispute the amount.
- The fee calculation issues included whether to adjust the $125 statutory EAJA cap for cost-of-living, which CPI to use (local/regional/national), whether to apply CPI monthly or yearly, choice of baseline for CPI, reasonableness of hours billed, and recoverable costs.
- The Court found a cost-of-living increase warranted, selected the regional (DC-MD-VA-WV) CPI, used yearly averages for 2012 and 2013, and adopted November 1996 ($100) as the CPI baseline tied to the EAJA amendment.
- The adjusted hourly rates computed were $187.765 for 2012 and $189.748 for 2013; the Court reduced some contested attorney hours and disallowed half of the Reply Lexis research costs as excessive.
- The Court awarded $7,304.98 in attorney fees and $2,478 in costs, totaling $9,782.96.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EAJA $125 cap should be increased for cost-of-living | CPI has risen >52% since 1996; an upward adjustment is justified | Statutory rate sufficient; cites cases limiting supplemental increases | Increase permitted; court applies cost-of-living adjustment |
| Which CPI to use (local/regional/national) | Use regional CPI for the district (DC-MD-VA-WV) as reflecting attorneys' actual costs | Use national CPI | Use regional CPI |
| Monthly vs. yearly CPI adjustment | Calculate multiplier monthly and apply to hours billed in each month for precision | Use yearly CPI to avoid undue burden | Use yearly regional CPI (2012 and averaged 2013) as reasonable balance |
| Baseline for CPI multiplier | Use March 1996 (EAJA amendment) as baseline; extrapolate if necessary | Also proposes March 1996 | Use March 1996 conceptually and adopt the next available regional CPI month (November 1996 = $100) as baseline |
| Reasonableness of billed hours | Request ~41 total hours across two attorneys (Plaintiff reduced some entries) | Seek reductions for excessive/unjustified entries | Reduce certain disputed reply and EAJA-calculation hours; award 38.7 compensable hours total |
| Recoverable costs for research (Lexis) | Seek $3,234 in research costs plus filing fee | Argue insufficient itemization and reasonableness | Award research and filing costs but reduce Reply research by 50%; total costs $2,478 |
Key Cases Cited
- Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (EAJA awards require government position not substantially justified)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (standard for reasonable hours and fee reductions)
- Role Models America, Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962 (CPI increase can justify EAJA rate adjustment)
- Cooper v. R.R. Retirement Bd., 24 F.3d 1414 (supporting cost-of-living adjustments to EAJA cap)
- Wilkett v. ICC, 844 F.2d 867 (used regional CPI to increase statutory rate)