IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HARRISON DIVISION

DAWN ANN SCHULTZ PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL NO. 3:23-cv-03027-MEF

MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner, Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending now before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act. (ECF Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this case, and pursuant to said authority, the Court issues this Order. (ECF No. 4). On August 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs under

, the Equal Access to Justice Act (hereinafter “EAJA”), requesting $6,958.00, representing a total of 28.40 attorney hours in 2023 and 2024 at an hourly rate of $245.00 and reimbursement for filing fees totaling $402.00. (ECF No. 25-1). On September 10, 2024, the Commissioner filed a response voicing no objections. (ECF No. 27). I. Discussion It is the opinion of the undersigned that the Plaintiff is entitled to a fee award in this case, as she is the prevailing party, the government’s decision to deny benefits was not “substantially justified,” and the time asserted to have been spent in the representation of the Plaintiff before the district court is reasonable. See Jackson v. Bowen,

(8th Cir. 1986) (burden is on the Commissioner to show substantial justification for the government’s denial of benefits);

(d)(2)(A) (statutory ceiling for an EAJA fee award is $125.00 per hour); Johnson v. Sullivan,

(8th Cir. 1990) (court may determine that there has been an increase in the cost of living, and may thereby increase the attorney’s rate per hour, based upon the United States Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index (“CPI”)); Hensley v. Eckerhart,

(1983) (in determining reasonableness, court looks at time and labor required; the difficulty of questions involved; the skill required to handle the problems presented; the attorney’s experience, ability, and reputation; the benefits resulting to the client from the services; the customary fee for similar services; the contingency or certainty of compensation; the results obtained; and, the amount involved). We note, however, that the hourly rate requested for 2023 exceeds the hourly rate approved by this Court. See General Order 39 (the Court’s standing Order allowing for enhanced hourly rates based on the CPI-South for December of the previous year). Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to an attorney’s fee award under EAJA in the amount of $6,715.00 ((27.00 hours in 2023 x $236.00/hour) + (1.40 hours in 2024 x

$245.00)) plus filing fees totaling $402.00. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff,

(2010), the EAJA fee award should be made payable to Plaintiff. However, if the Plaintiff has executed a valid assignment to Plaintiff’s attorney of all rights in a fee award and Plaintiff owes no outstanding debt to the federal government, the attorney’s fee may be awarded directly to Plaintiff’s attorney. The parties are reminded that, to prevent double recovery by counsel for the Plaintiff, the award herein under the EAJA will be considered at such time as a reasonable fee is determined pursuant to

. II. Conclusion Accordingly, the undersigned awards Plaintiff the sum of $6,715.00 for attorney’s fees and $402.00 in filing fees pursuant to the EAJA,

. Dated this 11th day of September 2024. Mark E. Ford /s/ HON. MARK E. FORD CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE