Boo Bac v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ARIEL JOY BOO BAC,
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Robert J. Jonker
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cv-672
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before me on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to
the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C § 2412. (ECF No. 24.) On March 3, 2026, the
Court entered a Stipulation and Order and Judgment remanding the matter to the Commissioner
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings. (ECF Nos. 22 and 23.) As
set forth in her application, Plaintiff seeks an EAJA fee award of $7,118.91 representing 31.56
hours of attorney time at an hourly rate of $204.75 and 6.57 hours of paralegal time at an hourly
rate of $100.00. (ECF No. 24-1, PageID.4767.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), I recommend
that the Court grant the fee request.
Under the 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. §
Case 1:25-cv-00672-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 25, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/02/26 Page 1
of 3

2
2412(d)(1)(A). As noted, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court 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.
Hourly Rate
Pursuant to the EAJA, an hourly rate shall be “based upon prevailing market rates for the kind
and quality of the services furnished,” subject to a presumptive cap of $125 per hour. 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d)(2)(A). A court may award a higher amount if it “determines that an increase in the cost of
living or a special factor . . . justifies a higher fee.” Id. A fee applicant “bear[s] the burden of producing
appropriate evidence to support [a] requested increase.” Bryant v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 578 F.3d 443,
450 (6th Cir. 2009).
For several years, judges in this district have agreed that $204.75 is an appropriate EAJA
hourly rate. See Belanger v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 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); see also Rinheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:24-cv-1141, 2026
WL 545093, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 2, 2026), adopted by 2026 WL 542570 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 26,
2026); Coy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:24-cv-414, 2024 WL 6975220, at *1 (Dec. 12, 2024). In her
present application, Plaintiff requests an hourly rate of $204.75. Therefore, I find that the requested
hourly rate is reasonable.
As for the paralegal rate, the requested hourly rate of $100 is in line with other EAJA fee
awards granted in this district. See Reginald V. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:25-cv-62, 2026 WL
705206, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 24, 2026), adopted sub nom. Vick v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. by 2026
WL 703354 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2026). Therefore, I find that this rate reasonable as well.
Case 1:25-cv-00672-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 25, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/02/26 Page 2
of 3

3
Number of Hours
Plaintiff seeks an award based on 31.56 hours of attorney work and 6.57 hours of paralegal
work, for which she presents a table describing each task performed and the number of hours spent on
each task. (ECF No. 24-2, PageID.4771-73.) Defendant does not object to the number of hours, and
having reviewed Plaintiff’s submission, I find the number of hours claimed to be reasonable.
Accordingly, I recommend that the Court award Plaintiff fees of $7,118.91 based on the above-
recommended hourly rate.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the Court grant Plaintiff’s application for EAJA
fees in the amount of $7,118.91.
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: June 2, 2026 	/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
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-00672-RJJ-SJB ECF No. 25, PageID.<pageID> Filed 06/02/26 Page 3
of 3