Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Morris v. Berryhill

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division

October 26, 2017

DUSTIN LEE MORRIS PLAINTIFF
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

          OPINION AND ORDER

          J. LEON HOLMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This is a Social Security disability appeal in which the Court found that the administrative law judge committed error and remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The plaintiff has filed a petition for attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. He requests a fee in the amount of $14, 327.43, calculated on the basis of 73.2 hours multiplied by $195.73 per hour. He bases that hourly rate on the statutory maximum of $125 per hour adjusted by dividing the Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers' rate for March of 2017 by the cost of living for March of 1996 and multiplying that figure by 125. He also requests payment of $92.78 in expenses.

         The Acting Commissioner has responded and concedes that the plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act but contends that the application is excessive. Specifically, the Commissioner objects to the inclusion of clerical activities, the claimed time spent preparing the brief and reply brief for this appeal, the time spent preparing for oral argument before the administrative law judge, and the time spent preparing the motion for attorney's fees. The Commissioner argues that the plaintiff's time should be reduced as follows:

• 4 hours deducted from the 5.8 hours that plaintiff requests for time spent preparing the appeal;
• 15.7 hours deducted from the 36.4 hours that plaintiff requests for time spent on initial brief;
• 8 hours deducted from the 18 hours that plaintiff requests for time spent on reply brief;
• 3.5 hours deducted from the 7.8 hours that plaintiff requests for time spent preparing for and attending oral argument;
• 2.4 hours deducted from the 4.4 hours that plaintiff requests for time spent on attorney's fee brief.

         Additionally, the Commissioner objects to the plaintiff's request for travel and copying costs. The Commissioner agrees with an hourly rate of $195.73 for work completed in 2017, but argues that the hourly rate should be $193 for work completed in 2016.

         In reply, the plaintiff agrees that an hourly rate of $193 is warranted for work in 2016. The plaintiff does not agree with all of the Commissioner's reductions but agrees to reduce the 7.8 hours related to oral argument to 6 hours. He also withdraws his request for travel costs. Finally, the plaintiff requests an additional 3.5 hours for time spent preparing the reply brief on this motion.

         Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a prevailing social security claimant is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and expenses unless the Commissioner's position in denying benefits was “substantially justified” or special circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). In this case, the Commissioner concedes that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney's fees pursuant to the Act. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 2631-32, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993) (holding that a claimant who wins a sentence-four remand order and judgment is a prevailing party entitled to Equal Access to Justice Act fees).

         Attorney's fees may not be awarded in excess of $125.00 per hour-the maximum statutory rate under the Act-unless the Court finds that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor justifies a higher fee. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). Where “an EAJA petitioner presents uncontested proof of an increase in the cost of living sufficient to justify hourly attorney's fees of more than $75 per hour, enhanced fees should be awarded.” Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 505 (8th Cir. 1990).[1]

         The plaintiff has offered uncontested proof of an increase in the cost of living in the Eastern District of Arkansas sufficient to justify an hourly rate in excess of $125.00 per hour. Johnson, 919 F.2d at 504 (“We believe that the Consumer Price Index constitutes ‘proper proof' of the increased cost of living since the EAJA's enactment and justifies an award of attorney's fees greater than $75 per hour in these cases.”). The Court, however, rejects the plaintiff's requested hourly rate that is calculated simply by multiplying $125 per hour by a number derived from the Consumer Price Index. The Consumer Price Index provides proof warranting an enhanced fee award; it does not replace the Court's discretion in determining a reasonable fee. See Theis v. Astrue, 828 F.Supp.2d 1006, 1009 (E.D. Ark. 2011). The calculation based on the Consumer Price Index results in an hourly rate of the anomalous number of $195.73. An attorney's fee is an estimate of what is a reasonable fee for the service rendered considering a number of relevant factors such as the time and labor involved, the skill needed to provide the service properly, the fee customarily charged for that service in the locality, the experience and ability of the attorney providing the service, and whether the fee is fixed or contingent. See Ark. Rules of Prof'l Conduct 1.5. Consideration of those factors does not result in the type of odd hourly rate for which the parties argue here. Theis, 828 F.Supp.2d at 1009.

         The Eighth Circuit has held that, “[u]nder ordinary circumstances . . . the cost of living affects each litigant within a judicial district to the same degree” and, consequently, enhanced hourly fee rates based on cost-of-living increases should be consistent in each case, “rather than producing disparate fee awards from each court within the district or from different districts within this circuit.” Johnson, 919 F.2d at 505. To this end, and in light of common billing practices among attorneys, the plaintiff's fee award should be calculated based on an hourly rate in a single, round figure-the kind of figure that commonly forms the basis for determining an attorney's fee. Taking into account the Consumer Price Index, as well as the Equal Access to Justice Act fee awards from past cases within Arkansas, the Court believes that an hourly rate of $190.00 will reasonably ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.