Woods v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
VONIESHA LASHON WOODS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________/
Hon. Robert J. Jonker
Case No. 1:25-cv-270
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees
Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. (ECF No. 20). On September 11, 2025,
the Court remanded this matter to the Commissioner for further administrative
action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff’s counsel now seeks
$5,662.91 in attorney’s fees. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the undersigned
recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be granted in part and denied in part.
Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), the prevailing party in an
action seeking judicial review of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
may apply for an award of fees and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). While a
prevailing party is not entitled, as a matter of course, to attorney fees under the
EAJA, see United States v. 0.376 Acres of Land, 838 F.2d 819, 825 (6th Cir. 1988),
fees and costs are to be awarded unless the Court finds that the Commissioner’s
position was “substantially justified” or that “special circumstances make an award
Case 1:25-cv-00270-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/11/25 Page 1
of 4

2
unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
The Commissioner has not asserted that his position in this matter was
substantially justified. Thus, counsel is entitled to an award under the EAJA. The
amount request by counsel, however, is not reasonable. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C.
§ 2412(d)(2)(A) (a request for EAJA fees must be “reasonable”); Hensley v. Eckerhart,
461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983) (the plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate that his EAJA
fee request is reasonable). Counsel requests to be compensated at an hourly rate of
$246.75 for 22.95 hours of work. While the number of hours expended in this matter
is reasonable, the Court finds the hourly rate requested by counsel to be unjustified.
The EAJA provides that “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). As courts recognize, the EAJA’s
statutory hourly rate “is a ceiling and not a floor.” Caviness v. Commissioner of Social
Security, 681 Fed. Appx. 453, 455 (6th Cir., Mar. 3, 2017). Counsel bears the burden
of “producing appropriate evidence to support the requested increase.” Bryant v.
Commissioner of Social Security, 578 F.3d 443, 450 (6th Cir. 2009). Counsel must
“produce satisfactory evidence. . .that the requested rates are in line with those
prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable
skill, experience, and reputation.” Ibid. Counsel does not satisfy his burden by
simply submitting his own affidavits or “the Department of Labor’s Consumer Price
Index, arguing that the rate of inflation supported an increase in fees.” Ibid.
Case 1:25-cv-00270-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/11/25 Page 2
of 4

3
In support of his request to be compensated at an increased hourly rate,
counsel has submitted the following: (1) affidavits from Social Security practitioners
from outside this District including one from an attorney living in Chicago; (2) rulings
from federal courts in other states; (3) unsworn statements from Social Security
practitioners from outside the District; and (4) a decision from the Eastern District of
Michigan concerning a request for fees under a different statutory provision.
This evidence is not persuasive and the Court, therefore, finds that counsel has
failed to establish that compensation at the requested hourly rate is appropriate. The
Court instead finds more appropriate the increased hourly rate of $204.75 the Court
has previously approved. See Belanger v. Commissioner of Social Security, Case
No. 2:20-cv-009, Opinion and Order, ECF No. 28 (W.D. Mich.) (finding that inflation
and cost-of-living increases supported increasing the hourly EAJA rate from $175 to
$204.75). As at least one court in this District has noted, this amount is significantly
higher than that paid to attorneys performing comparable work representing
individuals in litigation against the federal government. See, e.g., Weaver v.
Commissioner of Social Security, 2021 WL 1269547 at *1 (W.D. Mich., Mar. 19, 2021).
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that EAJA fees be awarded in the
amount of four thousand, six hundred ninety-nine dollars and one cent ($4,699.01).
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010),
however, this order awarding EAJA fees must be entered in Plaintiff’s favor. Id. at
591-93; see also, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) (the EAJA awards fees “to a prevailing
party”); Kerr v. Commissioner of Social Security, 874 F.3d 926, 934-35 (6th Cir. 2017)
Case 1:25-cv-00270-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/11/25 Page 3
of 4

4
(reaffirming that Astrue requires EAJA fees to be paid to the claimant).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons articulated herein, the undersigned recommends that
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, (ECF
No. 20), be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the undersigned
recommends that Plaintiff be awarded four thousand, six hundred ninety-nine dollars
and one cent ($4,699.01) pursuant to the EAJA and that such be paid directly to
Plaintiff.
OBJECTIONS to this report and recommendation must be filed with the Clerk
of Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within such time waives the right to appeal
the District Court’s order. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Respectfully submitted,
DATE: DECEMBER 11, 2025 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00270-RJJ-PJG ECF No. 23, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/11/25 Page 4
of 4