Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
ANGELA ELISE HUDMAN
vs.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
§
§
§ 	CASE NO. 6:24cv202-JDK-KNM
§
§
§
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Angela Elise Hudman initiated this lawsuit by filing a complaint seeking judicial
review of the Commissioner’s decision denying an application for Social Security benefits. Before
the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (ECF 15).
The motion is referred in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. 	For the reasons below, the motion
should be GRANTED.
Background
The Court entered an Order and a Final Judgment on September 9, 2025 and September
11, 2025, respectively, reversing the Commissioner’s final administrative decision and remanding
the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff then filed the present motion seeking an EAJA award of $7,200.00
in fees. 	Plaintiff proceeded in forma pauperis and does not request an award for costs. 	The
Commissioner did not file a response.
Discussion
The “dual purpose” of the EAJA is “to ensure adequate representation for those who need
it and to minimize the cost of this representation to taxpayers.” Baker v. Bowen, 839 F.2d 1075
Case 6:24-cv-00202-JDK-KNM Document 16 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
(5th Cir. 1988), reh’g denied, 848 F.2d 66 (5 th Cir. 1988). 	Eligibility for a fee award under the
EAJA requires, at a minimum, that the claimant be a “prevailing party,” that the Commissioner’s
position was not “substantially justified,” that no “special circumstances make an award unjust,”
and that any fee application be submitted to the court within 30 days of final judgment and be
supported by an itemized statement. Commissioner INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 110 S.Ct. 2316,
2319, 110 L.Ed.2d 134 (1990); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1). A “final judgment” is a judgment that is
final and not appealable. 	28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(G). 	The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s
requested extension of time to file the motion for fees (ECF 24). With regard to the amount of
fees, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) states:
(A) “fees and other expenses” includes the reasonable expenses of expert witnesses,
the reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, or project which
is found by the court to be necessary for the preparation of the party’s case, and
reasonable attorney fees (The amount of fees awarded under this subsection shall
be based upon prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of services furnished,
except that (i) no expert witness shall be compensated at a rate in excess of the
highest rate of compensation for expert witnesses paid by the United States; and
(ii) attorney 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.).
A remand accomplished pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) renders the
claimant a prevailing party regardless of whether the claimant is successful in obtaining benefits
on remand. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-01, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993).
The Commissioner has the burden of proving that his position was “substantially justified” and he
has not done so here. Herron v. Bowen, 788 F.2d 1127, 1130 (5 th Cir. 1986) (per curiam); see also
Davidson v. Veneman, 317 F.3d 503, 506 (5th Cir. 2003). In addition, the Commissioner has not
alleged or shown special circumstances that would render an award unjust.
The hourly attorney rate sought by Plaintiff exceeds $125.00 per hour, requiring a finding
that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified
Case 6:24-cv-00202-JDK-KNM Document 16 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). Plaintiff
asserts that an increase in the hourly rate is justified in this case due to increases in the cost of
living as reflected by the Consumer Price Index. The requested award of $7,200.00 represents an
hourly rate of $252.25 for 28.8 hours of attorney work and an hourly rate of $100.00 for 2.5 hours
of paralegal work. Plaintiff attached time logs supporting the requested award. ECF 15-1 (Exhibit
A).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A), a prevailing plaintiff is only entitled to “reasonable
attorney fees.” 	Here, the Commissioner has not opposed Plaintiff’s assertion that $7,200.00 in
fees represents an appropriate award pursuant to the EAJA. The requested fees are reasonable.
Conclusion
In the interest of ensuring adequate representation for those who need it and to minimize
the cost of that representation to taxpayers, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted.
Plaintiff should be awarded the requested $7,200.00 in fees.
The final issue concerns whether the fees are payable to Plaintiff or her attorney. Attorney
fees under the EAJA are properly payable to the party-litigant, not directly to the attorney. See
Astrue v. Ratliff, 530 U.S. 586, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2524, 177 L.Ed.2d 91 (2010). In part, that is to
make fee payments subject to a government offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt that the litigant
may owe the United States. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. at 2524. The present motion asserts that Plaintiff
executed an assignment of EAJA fees. The motion seeks payment directly to counsel if Plaintiff
does not owe a federal debt that is subject to offset. The motion fails to address the implications
of the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3727. Accordingly, payment should be made payable to
Plaintiff. See Cardona v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2023 WL 2577200 (W.D.Tex. March
17, 2023).
Case 6:24-cv-00202-JDK-KNM Document 16 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
In sum, Plaintiff, not her attorney, should be paid fees totaling $7,200.00. Plaintiff’s
payment of fees owed to her attorney is a matter of the executed agreements between them.
RECOMMENDATION
It is RECOMMENDED that the Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to
Justice Act (ECF 15) be GRANTED and that the Commissioner pay Plaintiff for fees incurred
totaling $7,200.00 pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The payment should be made to
Plaintiff but mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel of record.
Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and
file written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b). Written objections shall not exceed five pages. Local Rule CV-72(b).
A 	party’s 	failure 	to 	file 	written 	objections 	to 	the 	findings, 	conclusions 	and
recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen days after service shall bar that party
from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations
and, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed
factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. 	Douglass v.
United Servs. Auto. Assn., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir.1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen
days).
Case 6:24-cv-00202-JDK-KNM Document 16 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>