Villatoro v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
BENITA VILLATORO 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 2:24-cv-02152-TLB-MEF
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner,
Social Security Administration 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending now before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal
Access to Justice Act. 	(ECF No. 19). 	On December 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for
attorney’s fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the Equal Access to Justice Act (hereinafter
“EAJA”), requesting $9,127.40, representing a total of 3.10 attorney hours for work performed in
2024 at an hourly rate of $245.00; 32.70 attorney hours in 2025 at a rate of $252.00 per hours; and
1.70 paralegal hours at a rate of $75.00 per hour. (ECF No. 19-2). On December 16, 2025, the
Commissioner filed a response voicing no objections. (ECF No. 21).
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,” the hourly rate requested for both attorney and paralegal hours does not exceed the CPI
for either year in question, and the time asserted to have been spent in the representation of the
Plaintiff before the district court is reasonable. See Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127, 128 (8th Cir.
1986) (burden is on the Commissioner to show substantial justification for the government’s denial
of benefits); Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503 (8th Cir. 1990) (the hourly rate may be increased
when there is “uncontested proof of an increase in the cost of living sufficient to justify hourly
attorney’s fees of more than $75.00 an hour); and, Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 430 (1983)
(in determining reasonableness, court looks at time and labor required; the difficulty of questions
Case 2:24-cv-02152-TLB Document 22 Filed 12/17/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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). Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an attorney’s fee award under EAJA in the amount
of $9,127.40.
Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 596 (2010), the EAJA fee award should be
made payable to Plaintiff; however, as a matter of practice, an EAJA fee made payable to Plaintiff
may properly be mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel.
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 42 U.S.C. § 406.
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the Plaintiff be awarded the sum of
$9,127.40 for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of our report and recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. We remind the parties
that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district
court.
Dated this 17th day of December 2025.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HONORABLE MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:24-cv-02152-TLB Document 22 Filed 12/17/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>