Sorrows v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
VALERIE M. SORROWS 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CIVIL NO. 2:23-cv-02148-MEF
LELAND DUDEK, Acting Commissioner1
Social Security Administration 	DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending now before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal
Access to Justice Act. 	(ECF Nos. 19, 20). 	The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a
Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in this case, and pursuant to said authority, the Court
issues this Order. (ECF No. 6).
On March 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. §
2412, the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), requesting $4,245.90, representing a total of
18.90 attorney hours for work performed in 2023, 2024 and 2025 at an hourly rate of $206.00 and
4.70 paralegal hours at an hourly rate of $75.00. 	(ECF No. 19-2). 	On March 6, 2025, the
Defendant filed a response voicing no objections. (ECF No. 22). They note, however, a minor
calculation error in the number of paralegal hours requested. On Exhibit A, it correctly reflects
3.70 hours but Exhibit B states 4.70 hours.
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
1 Leland Dudek was named Acting Commissioner of Social Security on February 18, 2025, and in
his official capacity is substituted as defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).
Case 2:23-cv-02148-MEF Document 23 Filed 05/06/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) (statutory ceiling for an EAJA fee award is $125.00 per
hour); Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 504-505 (8th Cir. 1990) (court may determine that there
has been an increase in the cost of living, and may thereby increase the attorney’s rate per hour,
based upon the United States Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index (“CPI”)); and, Hensley
v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 430 (1983) (in determining reasonableness, court looks at time and
labor required; the difficulty of questions 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, after correcting the
calculation error, Plaintiff is entitled to an attorney’s fee award under EAJA in the amount of
$4,170.90.
Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 596 (2010), the EAJA fee award should be
made payable to Plaintiff. However, if the Plaintiff has executed a valid assignment to Plaintiff’s
attorney of all rights in a fee award and Plaintiff owes no outstanding debt to the federal
government, the attorney’s fee may be awarded directly to Plaintiff’s attorney.
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.
Case 2:23-cv-02148-MEF Document 23 Filed 05/06/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $4,170.90 for attorney’s fees
pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of May 2025.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HONORABLE MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:23-cv-02148-MEF Document 23 Filed 05/06/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>