Barnes v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
JERRY BARNES 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CIVIL NO. 2:25-cv-02147- MEF
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner
Social Security Administration 	DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending now before this Court is Plaintiff’s Stipulated Motion for Attorney Fees Under the
Equal Access to Justice Act. (ECF No. 19). The parties have stipulated to an award of $6,000.00
in attorney’s fees and no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).
(Id.).
It is the opinion of the undersigned that the Plaintiff is entitled to a fee award in this case,
as he is the prevailing party, the government’s decision to deny benefits was not “substantially
justified,” and the parties have stipulated to the fee requested. 	See Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d
127, 128 (8th Cir. 1986) (burden is on the Commissioner to show substantial justification for the
government’s denial of benefits); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) (statutory ceiling for an EAJA fee
award is $125.00 per hour); Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 505 (8th Cir. 1990) (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”)); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 430 (1983) (in determining reasonableness,
court looks at time and labor required; the difficulty of questions involved; the skill required to
handle the problems presented; the attorney’s experience, ability, and reputation; the benefits
resulting to the client from the services; the customary fee for similar services; the contingency or
Case 2:25-cv-02147-MEF Document 20 Filed 05/28/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
certainty of compensation; the results obtained; and, the amount involved); and General Order 39
(the Court’s standing Order allowing for enhanced hourly rates based on the CPI-South for
December of the previous year). Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the Plaintiff is entitled
to an attorney’s fee award under EAJA in the amount of $6,000.00.
Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 596 (2010), the EAJA fee award should be
made payable to Plaintiff; however, if the Plaintiff has executed a valid assignment to Plaintiff’s
attorney of all rights in a fee award and Plaintiff owes no outstanding debt to the federal
government, the attorney’s fee may be awarded directly to Plaintiff’s attorney.
The parties are reminded that, to prevent double recovery by counsel for the Plaintiff, the
award herein under the EAJA will be considered at such time as a reasonable fee is determined
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff is awarded the stipulated amount of $6,000.00 in attorney’s fees
and no costs pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
Dated this 28th day of May 2026.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02147-MEF Document 20 Filed 05/28/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>