Granados v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
I VAN A NDRES B.G., 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL A CTION N O. 4:25-cv-00971
§
FRANK BISIGNANO , 	§
COMMISSIONER OF 	§
SOCIAL SECURITY A DMINISTRATION, 	§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Parties’ Joint Motion for Attorney’s Fees.1 ECF 22.
Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $11,652.95 pursuant to
the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. 	Plaintiff represents that
Defendant agrees to the Motion. 	ECF 22 at 2. 	Having considered Plaintiff’s
submissions and the law, the Court RECOMMENDS the Motion be GRANTED IN
PART for the reasons discussed below.
Plaintiff filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of
the Commissioner’s final decision denying his application for Disability Insurance
Benefits. ECF 1. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 13) and the
1 The District Judge referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), the Cost and Delay Reduction Plan under the Civil Justice Reform Act,
and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. ECF 3.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 08, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-00971 Document 23 Filed 06/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

2
Commissioner filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF 17. Plaintiff filed
a Reply. ECF 18. On March 3, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion, denied
Defendant’s Motion, and remanded the case for further proceedings pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). 	ECF 19; ECF 20. 	Thus, Plaintiff is the prevailing party and is
entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S.
292, 302-303 (1993) (holding that a plaintiff who obtains a remand order is a
prevailing party); Banks v. Berryhill, Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-0239, 2019 WL
2084539, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 13, 2019) (holding that “[a]ny attorneys’ fees
awarded under the EAJA must be reasonable.”).
The EAJA sets the rate for attorney’s fees at $125 per hour, “unless the court
determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor” justifies a higher
fee. 	28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii). 	The court has wide discretion to increase the
statutory hourly rate. Martha V. v. Kijakazi, No. 4:21-CV-3267, 2023 WL 5186869,
at *2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2023). To determine a reasonable rate, district courts in
the Fifth Circuit adjust the current $125.00 statutory rate using the average
Consumer Price Index for the region where the work was performed for the specific
year in which the work was performed.2 	See Perales v. Casillas, 950 F.2d 1066,
1079 (5th Cir. 1992) (instructing the district court “to segregate the attorneys' hours
2 	The 	CPI 	for 	the 	Houston-The 	Woodlands-Sugar 	Land 	TX 	region 	can 	be 	found 	at
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUURS37BSA0?amp%%20253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_vie
w=data&include_graphs=true (last visited June 4, 2026).
Case 4:25-cv-00971 Document 23 Filed 06/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

3
by year and apply the appropriate cost-of-living adjustment on an annual basis”).
Specifically, the court compares the CPI for this region in 1996 when the $125.00
rate was established and the CPI for the year in which the work was performed to
arrive at a differential and then multiplies that differential by $125.00 per hour. See
Angela C. v. Kijakazi, No. 4:22-CV-0904, 2023 WL 4551207, at *2 (S.D. Tex. June
28, 2023) (calculating the 2022 hourly rate of $226.58 by multiplying the percentage
difference between the 1996 CPI of 142.7 and the 2022 CPI of 258.66, or 181.26,
by $125.00), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Collum v. Kijakazi, No.
4:22-CV-0904, 2023 WL 4549594 (S.D. Tex. July 14, 2023); Martha V., 2023 WL
5186869, at *3 (calculating the 2023 hourly rate of $232.30 by multiplying the
percentage difference between the 1996 CPI of 142.7 and the 2023 CPI for the first
half of 2023 of 265.194, or 184.68, by $125.00). The EAJA allows for recovery of
paralegal fees at prevailing market rates. Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S.
571, 581 (2008). 	In this district, counsel typically request fees for 20-40 hours of
work. Angela C., 2023 WL 4551207, at *2; Martha V., 2023 WL 5186869, at *2.
Plaintiff seeks fees for 45.3 hours of attorney work at a rate of $255.90 per
hour.3 ECF 22-1 at 3. Plaintiff seeks fees for 4.8 hours of paralegal work at a rate
3 Plaintiff lists 45.7 as the total amount of attorney hours. ECF 22-1 at 3. This appears to be an
error because a review of the summary of hours indicates that the two attorneys worked a total of
45.3 hours. Id. at 1-3. Of the attorney hours, 3.6 hours are from 2024, 39.7 hours are from 2025,
and 2 hours are from 2026. Id.
Case 4:25-cv-00971 Document 23 Filed 06/08/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

4
of $100 per hour.4 	Id. 	These hours at the listed rates would result in an award of
$12,072.27.5
According to the Court’s calculation using the above-described method, the
adjusted attorney rate for the Houston-The Woodlands-Sugarland, TX area is
$240.19 per hour for 2024, $243.29 per hour for 2025, and $250.50 per hour for
2026 (using the available data through April 2026). 	See Benjamin S. v. Bisignano,
No. 4:23-CV-4768, 2025 WL 1001599, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2025) (corroborating
a $240.19 adjusted hourly rate for 2024); Alicia B., v. Bisignano, No. 4:25-CV-5058,
2026 WL 916961, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2026) (corroborating the $243.29
adjusted hourly rate for 2025). 	Many courts in this District have recognized a rate
of $100 per hour for paralegal work in the EAJA context. See, e.g., Jones v. Comm'r
of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 4:24-CV-4500, 2025 WL 3488667, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Nov.
7, 2025), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Jones v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., No. 4:24-CV-04500, 2025 WL 3487707 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2025).
The requested 45.3 attorney and 4.8 paralegal hours are reasonable, even if
the 50.1-hour total is slightly above the typical range for a Social Security appeal.
See Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. CV 24-515-SDJ, 2026 WL 735343, at *3
4 As with the attorney hours, Plaintiff indicates the total is 4.4 hours, but the attached summary
shows 4.8 hours of paralegal work. ECF 22-1 at 1-3. The total hours remain 50.1, so this appears
to be an arithmetic error. 	According to Plaintiff’s records, 1.9 of the paralegal hours are from
2024, 2.5 hours are from 2025, and 0.6 hours are from 2026. Id.
5 As described supra, notes 3 and 4, this minor error in the hours results in a slightly lower request
than Plaintiff seeks. ECF 22-1 at 3.
Case 4:25-cv-00971 Document 23 Filed 06/08/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

5
(M.D. La. Mar. 16, 2026) (finding thirty hours of work by attorney and 33.25 hours
by law student reasonable). The administrative record in this case was over 4,000
pages long and required around 13.3 hours, or slightly under one third, of the
attorney’s hours for review. ECF 6; ECF 7; ECF 8. See Blanche C. v. Comm'r, Soc.
Sec. Admin., No. 6:24-CV-00069-H-BU, 2025 WL 3852948, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct.
3, 2025) (finding 50.7 attorney hours and 9 paralegal hours reasonable due to the
extensive, 3,787-page record), report and recommendation adopted, No. 6:24-CV-
069-H, 2026 WL 30831 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2026). 	Therefore, the Court finds the
hours reasonable, particularly given Defendant agrees to the Motion. ECF 22 at 2.
The claimed attorney hours at the Court’s calculated rates would result in
$11,024.29 in attorney fees. At the $100 paralegal rate, the total for the 4.8 hours
would be $480. 	The total reasonable fee award is $11,504.29. 	To promote
uniformity in the Division, the Court should grant this slightly reduced fee award
based on its calculated reasonable rates. 	Brian K. L. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No.
4:20-CV-02810, 2022 WL 2704851, at *3 (S.D. Tex. July 12, 2022).
For the reasons stated above, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion
(ECF 22) be GRANTED IN PART and Plaintiff be AWARDED $11,504.29 in fees
under 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
The 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	shall 	send 	copies 	of 	the 	memorandum 	and
recommendation to the respective parties, who will then have fourteen days to file
Case 4:25-cv-00971 Document 23 Filed 06/08/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6
written objections, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 	Failure to file written
objections within the time period provided will bar an aggrieved party from attacking
the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds.
Christina A. Bryan
United States Magistrate Judge
Signed on June 08, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:25-cv-00971 Document 23 Filed 06/08/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6