Pugh v. Colvin
1:13-cv-00465
S.D. Ala.Jun 25, 2014Background
- Pugh, on behalf of R.P., sued the SSA Commissioner Colvin in the SD Ala seeking EAJA fees after a remand.
- The court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded for further proceedings; judgment entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant.
- Plaintiff’s counsel sought EAJA fees of $1,736.68 for 9.3 hours at $186.74/hour.
- Defendant consented to $1,736.00 if payment was made to Plaintiff rather than to counsel.
- Court applied the F.R.S. and EAJA framework to determine eligibility, rate, and payment direction.
- Court adopted the Lucy formula to adjust the hourly rate based on CPI-U, with a temporal midpoint of January 12, 2014, yielding $186.74/hour.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EAJA fees should be awarded to the prevailing party. | Pugh, as prevailing party, is entitled to fees. | Government position supports fee to Plaintiff, not attorney, per Ratliff/Reeves. | Yes; award to Plaintiff, not attorney. |
| What hourly rate applies under EAJA and whether adjustments are justified. | Market rate plus adjustment justified by CPI-U via Lucy formula. | No higher rate than allowed; standard rate suffices. | $186.74/hour determined via Lucy formula; total $1,736.68 for 9.3 hours. |
| Whether Plaintiff met all statutory conditions for EAJA eligibility. | All three conditions satisfied; no substantial justification by Government. | No objection to fee amount; EAJA conditions satisfied. | All three statutory conditions satisfied; fees awarded. |
| Whether the fee award should be paid to plaintiff or her attorney. | Plaintiff should receive the award. | Award should be paid to Plaintiff. | Award to Plaintiff, not to attorney, per Astrue v. Ratliff and Reeves. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1993) (recognized final judgment/appeal timing for EAJA; standard of review for fees)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method for calculating fees; reasonable hours and rates)
- Norman v. Housing Authority, 836 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir. 1988) (billing judgment; reasonableness of fees; avoid excess)
- Meyer v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 1029 (11th Cir. 1992) (two-step rate analysis; market rate then possible adjustment)
- Panola Land Buying Ass’n v. Clark, 844 F.2d 1506 (11th Cir. 1988) (EAJA fees awarded to prevailing party; non-attorney beneficiary considerations)
- Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732 (11th Cir.) (EAJA fees payable to prevailing party; offset considerations)
- Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010) (fees awards under EAJA are payable to litigant, not attorney; offset rules)