Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TINA M. W.,
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Jane M. Beckering
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-536
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before me on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees under the
Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C § 2412. (ECF No. 15.) On September 24, 2025, the
Court entered an Order and Judgment granting the parties’ stipulation to remand the matter to the
Commissioner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings. (ECF Nos.
13 and 14.) As set forth in the motion, Plaintiff seeks an EAJA fee award of $8,052.00, representing
33 hours of attorney time at an hourly rate of $244.00. (ECF No. 15-2.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B), I recommend that the fee request be GRANTED IN PART as set forth below.
Under 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
attorney’s fees and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). While a prevailing party is not entitled
to attorney’s fees under the EAJA as a matter of course, 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 unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). As noted, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court
Case 1:25-cv-00536-JMB-SJB ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/02/25 Page 1
of 3

2
remanded this matter to the Commissioner for further administrative action pursuant to sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). There is no indication here that the Commissioner’s position was
substantially justified, or that special circumstances weighing against an award are present.
First, as for the requested rate, I and other judges in this district have previously found
$204.75 per hour to be an appropriate rate for attorney time under the EAJA. In fact, the Court
recently awarded EAJA attorney fees at this rate. See Vankerson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:24-
cv-909 (W.D. Mich.), ECF Nos. 14 and 15. Thus, I conclude that the $204.75 rate is reasonable
and appropriate for all attorney hours incurred in this matter.
As for the number of hours, I find that the record, including Plaintiff’s initial brief,
reasonably supports an award based on 33 hours of attorney time that Plaintiff requests.
Accordingly, I recommend that Plaintiff be awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,756.75
(33 hours x $204.75).
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), an order
awarding EAJA fees must be entered directing payment to Plaintiff, not counsel. Id. at 591–93;
see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) (the EAJA awards fees “to a prevailing party”); Kerr v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 874 F.3d 926, 934–35 (6th Cir. 2017) (reaffirming that Astrue requires EAJA
fees to be paid to the claimant). Therefore, I recommend that the Court order that payment be made
directly to Plaintiff.
Dated: December 2, 2025 	/s/ Sally J. Berens
SALLY J. BERENS
U.S. Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court
within 14 days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections
Case 1:25-cv-00536-JMB-SJB ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/02/25 Page 2
of 3

3
within the specified 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).
Case 1:25-cv-00536-JMB-SJB ECF No. 17, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/02/25 Page 3
of 3