Rowland v. Social Security Administration Commissioner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
MATTHEW ROWLAND 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CIVIL NO. 6:25-cv-06006-SOH-MEF
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner
Social Security Administration 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending now before this Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Attorney Fees Under the
Equal Access to Justice Act. (ECF No. 18). On November 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed An Unopposed
Motion for Attorney’s Fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412, the Equal Access to Justice Act
(“EAJA”), requesting $8,500.00, representing a total of 35.90 attorney hours in 2024; 1.50
paralegal hours; and reimbursement for the $405.00 filing fee. (ECF No. 17). The Commissioner
also filed a Stipulation for the Allowance of Attorney fees agreeing to this fee. (ECF No. 15)
I. 	Discussion
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,” the hourly rate requested for attorney hours does not exceed the CPI for the years in
question, and the time asserted to have been spent in the representation of the Plaintiff before the
district court is reasonable. 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
Case 6:25-cv-06006-SOH Document 18 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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 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 $8,500.00, plus costs.
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.
II. 	Conclusion
Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS awarding Plaintiff the sum of $8,500.00
for attorney’s fees, plus $405.00 in costs pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of our 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. We remind the parties
Case 6:25-cv-06006-SOH Document 18 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district
court.
Dated this 11th day of December 2025.
/s/ Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 6:25-cv-06006-SOH Document 18 Filed 12/11/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>