UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

KAYLA M. PATTERSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:23-cv-1238-CPT

CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,1

Defendant. ____________________________/

O R D E R Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA or the Act). (Doc. 26). For the reasons discussed below, the Plaintiff’s motion is granted. I. The Plaintiff initiated this action in June 2023 seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision denying her application for Supplemental Security Income. (Doc. 1). In September 2024, the Court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. (Doc. 22). The Clerk of Court entered

1 Ms. Colvin became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security on November 30, 2024. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Ms. Colvin is substituted for the former Commissioner, Martin O’Malley, as the Defendant in this suit. Judgment for the Plaintiff the same day. (Doc. 23). The instant motion, uncontested by the Commissioner, followed. (Doc. 26). II.

The EAJA authorizes a court to grant attorney’s fees to any party prevailing in litigation against the United States (including proceedings for judicial review of agency action), unless the court determines that the government’s position was “substantially justified” or that special circumstances exist which make such an award unjust.

(d). To warrant the issuance of fees under the Act, three conditions must

be met: (1) a party must file a fee application within thirty days of the final judgment; (2) a party must qualify as the prevailing party and her net worth must not have exceeded $2,000,000 at the time she commenced the action; and (3) the government’s position must not have been substantially justified and there must be no other special circumstances that would render such an award unjust. Id.; Patton v. Berryhill,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2017) (citing Myers v. Sullivan,

, 666–67 (11th Cir. 1990)). Each of these conditions has been satisfied here, as the Commissioner effectively acknowledges by her lack of opposition. Thus, it is appropriate to grant

attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA in this case. In assessing the fees to be authorized, courts look to subsection 2412(d)(2)(A), which provides, in pertinent part: The amount of fees [to be] awarded [to the prevailing party in any civil action brought against any agency or any official of the United States] shall be based upon [the] prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of the services furnished, except that . . . attorney[’s] fees shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.

(d)(2)(A). As this statutory language reflects, an analysis of the proper hourly rate under the Act consists of two steps. First, a court must ascertain the market rate for similar services provided by lawyers of comparable skill, experience, and reputation. Meyer v. Sullivan,

(11th Cir. 1992) (quoting Norman v. Hous. Auth. of Montgomery,

(11th Cir. 1988)). Second, if the prevailing market rate is more than $125 per hour, a court must decide whether to adjust the hourly rate for an increase in the cost of living or some special factor.

at 1033–34. The market rate during the relevant period for the type of work at issue in this case is not subject to precise calculation. In the Court’s experience, counsel submitting EAJA fee petitions for services performed since 2020 have typically sought hourly rates exceeding $200. As a result, the hourly rate charged by competent attorneys in this market has, for some time, surpassed the statutory cap of $125. The Court is not alone in this observation. See, e.g., Roman v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

, at

*1 (M.D. Fla. June 18, 2024); Goldstein v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 7, 2024); Burke v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 8:21-cv-1267-MSS-SPF, (Doc. 25) (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, (Doc. 26) (M.D. Fla. May 23, 2022); Chartier v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2022); Britt v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2022), report and recommendation adopted,

(M.D. Fla. Feb. 7, 2022). The Court therefore finds there is a sufficient basis to deviate upwardly

from the EAJA’s base fee rate to account for increases in the cost of living. Courts in this district and elsewhere routinely compute cost of living adjustments under the Act by using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index (CPI). See, e.g., Wilborn v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

, at *1 (M.D.

Fla. Apr. 24, 2013); Rodgers v. Astrue,

(M.D. Fla. 2009); Morrison v. Astrue,

, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2010);2 see also Sprinkle v. Colvin,

(7th Cir. 2015) (collecting various circuit court opinions utilizing the CPI to evaluate hourly rate adjustments). Given this case authority, the Court finds it reasonable to employ the CPI as a guide for determining cost of living

increases under the EAJA. See U.S. DEP’T OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls (last visited December 26, 2024). Here, the Plaintiff seeks $7,684.42 in attorney’s fees predicated upon a total of 31.5 hours expended in this action in 2023 and 2024 by her lawyer, Enrique Escarraz,

III, at the hourly rate of $243.95. (Doc. 26). To buttress her fee request, the Plaintiff submits, inter alia, an itemized schedule of the services Mr. Escarraz rendered in the

2 For a discussion of the CPI data employed by many courts in this Circuit, as well as an explanation of the cost of living adjustment calculation, see Sensat v. Berryhill,

, at *6 n.12 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2018). case. (Doc. 27-2). As indicated above, the Commissioner does not dispute the Plaintiffs calculated fee figure. (Doc. 26). In light of the Commissioner’s lack of opposition, as well as the Court’s own knowledge and experience in addressing fee matters, the Court finds that the total number of hours and the hourly rate claimed by counsel are both reasonable and adequately supported. See Norman v. Hous. Auth. of City of Montgomery,

(11th Cir. 1988); Barreras v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2021), report and recommendation adopted,

(M.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 2021). The Plaintiff is thus entitled to $7,684.42 in attorney’s fees. Il. For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Plaintiffs unopposed motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 26) is granted. 2. The Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $7,684.42. 3. In accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff,

(2010), the Commissioner’s remittance of this sum shall be made payable to the Plaintiff. If the Commissioner concludes that the Plaintiff does not owe any debt to the government, the Commissioner may honor an assignment of fees to the Plaintiff's lawyer. SO ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 27th day of December 2024. Odie bedlear "he Ack HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER P. TUITE United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to: Counsel of record