Muse v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
C ARI A NNE M., 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	CIVIL A CTION N O. 4:25-CV-02830
§
FRANK BISIGNANO , 	§
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 	§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees.1 ECF
16; ECF 17. Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,471.09
pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Plaintiff represents
that Defendant is unopposed to the relief requested. ECF 17-7. Having considered
Plaintiff’s submissions and the law, the Motion is 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 her application for Disability Insurance
Benefits. 	ECF 1. 	Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 9) and in
response the Commissioner filed an Unopposed Motion to Remand. ECF 14. On
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
April 02, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-02830 Document 18 Filed 04/02/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2
January 9, 2026, the Court granted the Motion, reversing the Commissioner’s
decision and remanding the case for further proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
405(g). ECF 15. 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
by year and apply the appropriate cost-of-living adjustment on an annual basis”).
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 April 1, 2026).
Case 4:25-cv-02830 Document 18 Filed 04/02/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3
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). As to hours, counsel in cases of this kind in this district 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 19.70 hours of attorney work at a rate of $245.36 per
hour.3 ECF 17 at 2. Plaintiff seeks fees for 5.10 hours of paralegal work at a rate of
3 According to Plaintiff’s records, 19.00 attorney hours are from 2025 and 0.70 were from 2026.
ECF 17-3 at 2-3.
Case 4:25-cv-02830 Document 18 Filed 04/02/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4
$125 per hour.4 	Id. 	These hours at the listed rates would result in an award of
$5,471.09. Id.
According to the Court’s calculation, the adjusted attorney rate for the
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugarland, TX area in 2025 is approximately $243.29 per
hour according to the above-described method. Recent decisions from this District
arrived at 2025 adjusted hourly rates of $242.49 and $243.69 for attorneys. 	See
Justin Jayde H. v. Bisignano, No. 4:24-CV-4499, 2025 WL 2531503, at *3 (S.D.
Tex. Sept. 3, 2025); N.H.M. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 4:24-CV-03634, 2025 WL
2687867, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2025). Using the CPI information available for
the beginning of 2026, the Court calculates a rate of approximately $244.60 per hour
for 2026. As recently as November 2025, this Court recognized a rate of $100 per
hour for paralegal work in the EAJA context. 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 Court finds the hours
reasonable.
4 According to Plaintiff’s records, 2.90 paralegal hours are from 2025 and 2.20 are from 2026.
ECF 17-4 at 2.
Case 4:25-cv-02830 Document 18 Filed 04/02/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5
The claimed attorney hours at the Court’s calculated rates would result in
$4,793.73 in attorney fees. At the reduced $100 paralegal rate, the total for the 5.10
hours would be $510. The total reasonable fee award is $5,303.73.
For the reasons stated above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s
Motion (ECF 16) be GRANTED IN PART and Plaintiff be AWARDED $5,303.73
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
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 April 02, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
Case 4:25-cv-02830 Document 18 Filed 04/02/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5