Warner v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
4:16-cv-04118
W.D. Ark.May 10, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Annette Warner appealed the SSA's denial of disability benefits; district court reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- After remand, Warner moved for EAJA attorney’s fees seeking $3,185.41 for work performed in 2016–2018 (2.8 hours in 2016; 12.3 in 2017; 1.5 in 2018) at enhanced hourly rates.
- Defendant did not contest Warner’s prevailing-party status or entitlement to EAJA fees but challenged the 2016 hourly rate as excessive and asked for a slight reduction.
- The statutory EAJA ceiling is $125/hour, but courts may adjust rates upward for cost-of-living increases (CPI) or special factors; General Order 39 permits use of CPI-South for adjustments in this district.
- The court found CPI-South justified rates of $188.00 (2016), $192.00 (2017), and $193.47 (2018), accepted the unopposed hours, and reduced the total award accordingly.
- The court noted Ratliff requires EAJA fees be awarded to the prevailing party (the claimant); fees may be paid directly to counsel only if the claimant validly assigns the fee and owes no federal debt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Warner is entitled to EAJA fees | Warner sought EAJA fees as prevailing party after remand | Defendant did not oppose entitlement | Warner is a prevailing party; EAJA fees appropriate |
| Appropriate hourly rates for 2016–2018 under EAJA | Requester sought $190.57 (2016), $192.00 (2017), $193.47 (2018) based on CPI-South | Defendant argued 2016 rate is excessive and should be reduced | Court found CPI-South supports $188.00 (2016), $192.00 (2017), $193.47 (2018) |
| Reasonableness of requested hours | Warner requested 2.8 (2016), 12.3 (2017), 1.5 (2018) hours | Defendant did not dispute hours | Court awarded the requested hours as uncontested |
| To whom EAJA fees should be paid | Counsel presumably sought payment to attorney | Defendant argued fees must be paid to prevailing party under Ratliff | Court held fees are awarded to Plaintiff; direct payment to counsel requires valid assignment and no federal debt |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127 (8th Cir. 1986) (government bears burden to show its position was substantially justified)
- Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503 (8th Cir. 1990) (CPI may justify EAJA rate increases)
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002) (EAJA and § 406(b) fee awards can both be made; EAJA award offsets § 406(b) recovery)
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993) (EAJA timeliness tied to final judgment or expiration of appeal period)
- Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010) (EAJA awards are payable to the prevailing party, not attorney, absent valid assignment and no federal debt)
- Cornella v. Schweiker, 728 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1984) (EAJA furthers shifting litigation expenses for unreasonable government action)