UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

ELIZABETH TORRES-LABOY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:23-cv-733-JRK

FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security,1

Defendant.

ORDER This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act

(Doc. No. 22; “Motion”), filed May 20, 2025.2 In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) in the amount of $6,968.35. Motion at 1; see also Invoice (Doc. No. 22-2); Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Affidavit Supporting Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act,

(Doc. No. 22-5; “Affidavit”). Defendant does not oppose the relief requested. See Motion at 5.

1 Frank Bisignano was recently confirmed as the Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Mr. Bisignano should be substituted as Defendant in this suit. No further action need be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act,

(g). 2 The pages of the Motion and supporting documentation are unnumbered. Citations are to the pagination assigned by the Court’s electronic filing system (CM/ECF). According to the Motion and supporting documentation, Plaintiff’s counsel expended a total of 27.9 hours in the representation of Plaintiff before

the Court: 1.2 hours in 2023, 25.57 hours in 2024, and 1.14 hours in 2025. See Motion; Invoice. Plaintiff requests an hourly rate of $243 for hours expended in 2023 and $250 for hours expended in 2024 and 2025. Motion at 1; Invoice. Plaintiff is seeking a higher hourly rate than the $125 specified by statute based

on the increase in the cost of living since 1996, when the attorney’s fee rate was last adjusted by Congress. See

(d)(2)(A) (permitting fee awards at rates higher than $125 per hour upon the Court’s determination that cost of living has increased). Having examined the Consumer Price Index and the

representations made in the Motion, the Court concludes an increase in inflation does justify a proportionate increase in attorney’s fees.3 Further, the number of hours expended is reasonable. Plaintiff has assigned her rights to any entitlement of attorney’s fees due

under the EAJA to her counsel. See Plaintiff’s Affidavit and Assignment of EAJA Fee (Doc. No. 22-4). Regarding the assignment, Plaintiff represents the following:

3 See U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Inflation Calculator, http://data.bls.gov/cgi- bin/cpicalc.pl (last visited May 29, 2025). In computing the hourly rate adjustment for the cost of living increase, the Consumer Price Index is generally used for the year in which the services were performed. See Masonry Masters, Inc. v. Nelson,

(D.C. Cir. 1997); see also Gates v. Barnhart, No. 5:01-cv-148-GRJ,

(M.D. Fla. June 25, 2002) (unpublished). If the United States Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, the government will accept Plaintiffs assignment of EAJA Fees and pay fees directly to Plaintiff's counsel. Motion at 2. Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act

(Doc. No. 22) is GRANTED. 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,968.35 pursuant to

(d). 3. The Commissioner may exercise the discretion to honor Plaintiffs assignment of fees to counsel if the U.S. Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a debt to the U.S. Government. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on May 29, 2025.

Trewin Boo K Reel JAMES R. KLINDT United States Magistrate Judge

kaw Copies to: Counsel of Record