Rentfrow v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
RONNIE RENTFROW,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________/
Hon. Jane M. Beckering
Case No. 1:25-cv-00329
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for EAJA Fees. (ECF
No. 15). The Court recently 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 $8,900 in attorney and paralegal 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-00329-JMB-PJG ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/13/26 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
$247.81 for 34.87 hours of work. Neither the requested hourly rates nor the time
expended on this matter are reasonable.
This Court recently found reasonable an hourly EAJA rate of $204.75. 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). While the Court is sympathetic to
this position, it nevertheless finds reasonable an hourly rate of $204.75.
Likewise, the number of hours for which counsel seeks to be compensated is
unreasonable. Counsel seeks to be compensated for 34.87 hours of work of which
nineteen hours represents the amount of time counsel expended to review the record
and draft the “Statement of Facts” section of Plaintiff’s initial brief. The
Case 1:25-cv-00329-JMB-PJG ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/13/26 Page 2
of 4

3
administrative record in this matter contained barely one thousand pages of medical
records, and the issues raised by Plaintiff in his appeal were neither novel nor
complex. Skilled and experienced counsel does not reasonably require nineteen hours
to accomplish this task. The Court finds that counsel can instead reasonably claim
ten hours for this effort.
In sum, Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for 25.87 hours of work at an
hourly rate of $204.75 ($5,296.88). The $564.00 requested for 5.64 hours of paralegal
work at an hourly rate of $100 is reasonable and compensable. See Caplash v.
Nielsen, 294 F. Supp. 3d 123 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (holding that an hourly paralegal rate
of $100 was appropriate in determining EAJA fee award). Accordingly, the
undersigned recommends that EAJA fees be awarded in the amount of five thousand,
eight hundred sixty dollars and eighty-eight cents ($5,860.88). However, in light of
the Supreme Court’s decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), 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) (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 EAJA Fees (ECF No. 15) be granted in part and denied in part.
Specifically, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff be awarded five thousand,
eight hundred sixty dollars and eighty-eight cents ($5,860.88) pursuant to the EAJA
Case 1:25-cv-00329-JMB-PJG ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/13/26 Page 3
of 4

4
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: January 13, 2026 	/s/ Phillip J. Green
PHILLIP J. GREEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00329-JMB-PJG ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 01/13/26 Page 4
of 4