IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 19, 2025 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION

§ N.H.M., § § Plaintiff, § § Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-03634 v. § § Commissioner of Social Security, § § Defendant. §

ORDER ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES Plaintiff N.H.M. filed an unopposed motion requesting an award of attorneys’ fees incurred for prosecuting a successful appeal of the Social Security Administration’s adverse ruling under

(g). Dkt. 21, 22. As addressed below, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Analysis The Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) authorizes a plaintiff to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees after successfully appealing a decision by the Social Security Administration. See

(d)(1)(A). To recover those fees, a plaintiff must establish: (1) that he is the prevailing party; (2) that he timely filed a fee application; (3) the Government’s position was not substantially justified; and (4) no special circumstances would make a fee award unjust. See Reese v. Saul,

, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2021) (citing, inter alia,

(d)(1)(A)-(B)).

Plaintiff is the prevailing party. This is because the Court granted the Commissioner’s motion to reverse the decision denying benefits and remand this case for further administrative proceedings under the fourth sentence of

(g). See Dkt. 19 (motion); Dkt. 20 (order); Shalala v. Schaefer,

(1993) (reversal and remand pursuant to

(g) confers a plaintiff with prevailing party status). Plaintiff also timely filed the motion for attorneys’ fees within thirty days of the date the judgment became final. See

(d)(1)(B) (30-day

deadline from final judgment);

§ 2412(d)(2)(G) (defining “final judgment” as “a judgment that is final and not appealable”); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (60- day deadline for notice of appeal when a federal agency is a party); Dkt. 20 (April 24, 2025 remand order); Dkt. 21 (July 23, 2025 motion). Nothing

indicates that the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified or that any special circumstances would make a fee award unjust. An award of fees under the EAJA is therefore proper. Next, the Court reviews counsel’s number of hours worked and the

requested hourly rate. Plaintiff seeks recovery for (a) 3.1 attorney hours from 2024, at an hourly rate of $242.23; and (c) 16.6 hours worked in 2025, at a rate of $244.55/hour. See Dkt. 22 at 2; Dkt. 22-2 at 2-4. Plaintiff also seeks reimbursement for 5.7 paralegal hours, at an hourly rate of $100.00. Dkt. 22 at 2; Dkt. 22-4 at 2.

Plaintiffs’ total of 19.7 attorney hours falls at the low end of the standard range for Social Security appeals. See, e.g., Thomas H. v. Kijakazi,

, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2023) (twenty- to forty-hour range). Billing records also reflect that paralegals’ hours are reimbursable as legal, rather

than clerical, work. See

(“Paralegal work can only be recovered as attorney’s fees if the work is legal rather than clerical.”) (quoting Vela v. City of Hous.,

, 681 (5th Cir. 2001)); Dkt. 22-4. Counsel’s requested hourly rates ($242.23 for 2024, and $244.55 for

2025) exceed the EAJA rate of $125, which was last amended in 1996. Those rates also marginally exceed the adjusted rates in this area ($240.19 for 2024 and $243.69 for 2025) that account for cost-of-living increases.1 See Nash v. Colvin,

, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2025) (CPI-adjusted rate for

2024 is $240.19).

1 The full CPI chart for the Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, Texas area is available on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ website. See Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject, U.S. Bureau of Lab. Stat., https://perma.cc/32FL-8NDR. Because there is no published CPI yet for all of 2025, the Court will use the figure for the first half of this year. That figure (276.825) is 94.95% higher than the local CPI of 142.00 in 1996. So the adjusted hourly rate is $243.69 (i.e., $125 x 1. 9495) for services provided in 2025. Applying the local CPI-adjusted rates ($240.19 for 2024 and $243.69 for 2025) to the number of attorney-hours worked (8.1 hours in 2024 and 16.6 hours in 2025) yields a total of $4,789.84. To that sum would be added $570.00 for 5.7 hours of paralegal work at the facially reasonable rate of $100.00. That erand total ($5,359.84) is about the same as the amount ($5,380.44) Plaintiff has requested. The Court finds that $5,380.44 is a reasonable fee award in this case. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff N.H.M.’s motion for attorneys’ fees (Dkt. 21) be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff be awarded $5,380.44 in reasonable attorneys’ fees. It is further ORDERED that the award must be payable to Plaintiff, but Defendant may send the payment to Plaintiffs counsel. Signed on September 19, 2025, at Houston, Texas.

(A,

United States Magistrate Judge