Beavers v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:25-cv-01041-SOH Document18 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 4 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
LATOSHA BEAVERS PLAINTIFF
VS. Civil No. 1:25-cv-01041

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending now before the Court is Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees
Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). ECF No. 17. Pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b){1) and (3), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey referred this Motion to the Court
for the purpose of making a report and recommendation. In accordance with that referral, this
Court enters the following report and recommendation.

1. Background:

On May 29, 2025, Latosha Beavers (“Plaintiff”) appealed to the Court from the Secretary
of the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) denial of her request for disability benefits. ECF
No. 3. On December 5, 2025, Plaintiff's case was reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence
four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ECF No. 16.

On January 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed this Motion. ECF No. 17. With this Motion, Plaintiff
seeks a total award of $8,000.00 in attorney fees for work performed. /d.!

2. Applicable Law:

Pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), a court must award attorney's fees to a

prevailing social security claimant unless the Secretary’s position in denying benefits was

‘Plaintiff was originally seeking EAJA fees in the amount of $11,270.00. However, after
discussing this matter with the Government, Plaintiff is reducing the amount of the EAJA fee
requested to $8,000.00 in attorney fees.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:25-cv-01041-SOH Document18 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 4 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

substantially justified. The Secretary has the burden of proving that the denial of benefits was
substantially justified. See Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127, 128 (8th Cir.1986) (“The Secretary
bears the burden of proving that its position in the administrative and judicial proceedings below
was substantially justified”). An EAJA application also must be made within thirty days of a final
judgment in an action, See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B), or within thirty days after the sixty day time
for appeal has expired. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 298 (1993).

An award of attorney’s fees under the EAJA is appropriate even though, at the conclusion
of the case, the plaintiffs attorney may be authorized to charge and to collect a fee pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). Recovery of attorney’s fees under both the EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) )
was specifically allowed when Congress amended the EAJA in 1985. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,
535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002) (citing Pub. L. No. 99-80, 99 Stat. 186 (1985)). The United States
Supreme Court stated that Congress harmonized an award of attorney’s fees under the EAJA and
under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) as follows:

Fee awards may be made under both prescriptions [EAJA and 42 U.S.C. §

406(b)(1)], but the claimant’s attorney must “refun[d] to the claimant the amount

of the smaller fee.”. . .“Thus, an EAJA award offsets an award under Section

406(b), so that the [amount of total past-due benefits the claimant actually receives]

will be increased by the... EAJA award up to the point the claimant receives 100

percent of the past-due benefits.”
Id. Furthermore, awarding fees under both acts facilitates the purposes of the EAJA, which is to
shift to the United States the prevailing party’s litigation expenses incurred while contesting
unreasonable government action. See id.; Cornella v. Schweiker, 728 F.2d 978, 986 (8th Cir.
1984).

The statutory ceiling for an EAJA fee award is $125.00 per hour. See 28 U.S.C. §

2412(d)(2)(A). A court is only authorized to exceed this statutory rate if “the court determines

that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified

Case 1:25-cv-01041-SOH Document18 - Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 4 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.” /d. A court may determine that
there has been an increase in the cost of living, and may thereby increase the attorney’s rate per
hour, based upon the United States Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index (“CPI”). See
Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 504 (8th Cir. 1990). See also General Order 39 (“Attorney’s
Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act”).

3. Discussion:

In the present action, Plaintiff's case was remanded to the SSA. ECF No. 16. Defendant
does not contest Plaintiff's claim that she is the prevailing party and does not oppose her
application for fees under EAJA. The Court construes the lack of opposition to this application as
an admission that the government’s decision to deny benefits was not “substantially justified” and
that Plaintiff is the prevailing party.

Further, I have reviewed counsel’s itemization of time appended to Plaintiffs application.
ECF No. 17-2. The Court notes Defendant does not object to the number of hours for which
counsel seeks a fee award, and this Court finds the time asserted to be spent in the representation
of Plaintiff before the district court is reasonable.

Finally, the Parties have agreed to a total award of $8,000.00. ECF No. 17. Based on this
agreement and review of the Motion, the Court recommends this amount in fees be awarded.

As a final point, attorney’s fees must be awarded to the “prevailing party” or the
litigant. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). Thus, these fees must be awarded to Plaintiff,
not to Plaintiff's attorney. However, if Plaintiff has executed a valid assignment to Plaintiffs
attorney of all rights in an attorney’s fee award and Plaintiff owes no outstanding debt to the federal

government, the attorney’s fee may be awarded directly to Plaintiff's attorney.

Case 1:25-cv-01041-SOH Document18 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 4 PagelD #:
<pagelD>

4. Conclusion:

Based upon the foregoing, the Court recommends the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for
Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 17) be GRANTED, and Plaintiff be awarded $8,000.00.

The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).

ENTERED this 20" day of January 2026.

(si Spencer G. Stapleton

HONORABLE SPENCER G. SINGLETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE