Hardin v. Bisignano Do not docket. Case remanded under the fourth sentence of 42 USC 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
D.H.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-03897
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Plaintiff 	D.H. 	filed 	an 	unopposed 	motion 	requesting 	an 	award 	of
attorneys’ fees incurred for prosecuting a successful appeal of the Social
Security Administration’s adverse ruling under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 	Dkt. 24.
As addressed below, Plaintiff’s motion should be granted in material part.
Analysis
I. 	Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees.
The Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) authorizes a plaintiff to recover
reasonable attorneys’ fees after successfully appealing a decision by the Social
Security Administration. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). To recover those fees,
a plaintiff must establish: (1) that he is the prevailing party; (2) that he timely
filed a fee application; (3) the Government’s position was not substantially
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 29, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03897 Document 25 Filed 07/29/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
justified; and (4) no special circumstances would make a fee award unjust.
See Reese v. Saul, 2021 WL 2188686, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2021) (citing, inter
alia, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A)-(B)).
Plaintiff is the prevailing party. 	This is because the Court granted the
Commissioner’s motion to reverse the decision denying benefits and remand
this case for further administrative proceedings under the fourth sentence of
42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 	See Dkt. 20 (motion); Dkt. 21 (order); Shalala v. Schaefer,
509 U.S. 292, 301-02 (1993) (reversal and remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g) confers a plaintiff with prevailing party status).
Plaintiff also timely filed the motion for attorneys’ fees within thirty days
of the date the judgment became final. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B) (30-day
deadline from final judgment); id. § 2412(d)(2)(G) (defining “final judgment” as
“a judgment that is final and not appealable”); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (60-
day deadline for notice of appeal when a federal agency is a party); Dkt. 21
(March 16, 2026 remand order); Dkt. 24 (June 12, 2026 motion). 	Nothing
indicates that the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified or that
any special circumstances would make a fee award unjust. 	An award of fees
under the EAJA is therefore proper.
Next, the Court reviews counsel’s number of hours worked and the
requested hourly rate. Plaintiff seeks recovery for 33 attorney hours from 2025
and .1 hour worked in 2026, at a rate of $258.60/hour. 	See Dkt. 24-3 at 1-3.
Case 4:25-cv-03897 Document 25 Filed 07/29/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
The total number of attorney hours falls within the standard range for Social
Security appeals. 	See, e.g., Thomas H. v. Kijakazi, 2023 WL 5191950, at *2
(S.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2023) (twenty- to forty-hour range).
Counsel’s requested hourly rate of $258.60 exceeds the EAJA rate of
$125, which was last amended in 1996. 	It also exceeds the adjusted rates in
this area ($243.29 for 2025 and $247.13 for 2026) that account for cost-of-living
increases. 1 	See Nash v. Colvin, 2025 WL 871623, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 20,
2025) (explaining the formula). 	Plaintiff relies instead on CPI tables for the
entire United States, which is not the correct measure. See Dkt. 24-4; Deborah
S. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2022 WL 393834, at *2-3 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2022)
(applying local CPI to determine appropriate hourly rate, even though counsel
was based in New York).
Applying the local CPI-adjusted rates ($243.29 for 2025 and $247.13 for
2026) to the number of attorney-hours worked (33 hours in 2025 and .1 hour
in 2026) yields a total of $8,053.28. 	That figure is about 5.9% less than the
sum that Plaintiff has requested ($8,559.67) based on a higher hourly rate.
1 The full CPI chart for the Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, Texas area is
available on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ website. 	See Databases, Tables &
Calculators by Subject, U.S. Bureau of Lab. Stat., https://perma.cc/F4QB-V78G. The
CPI for all of 2025 (277.742) is 94.63% higher than the local CPI in 1996 (142.7). So
for services provided in 2025, the CPI-adjusted hourly rate is $243.29 (i.e., $125 x
1.9463). 	Based on the available CPI for the first half of 2026 (282.048), the
corresponding adjusted hourly rate for that year is $247.13 (i.e., $125 x 1.977).
Case 4:25-cv-03897 Document 25 Filed 07/29/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
“[T]o promote uniformity in the division,” however, this Court should hew to
the local CPI-adjusted hourly rate and award $8,053.28 in attorneys’ fees. See
Jessica S. v. Bisignano, 2026 WL 1597479, at *2 (S.D. Tex. May 12, 2026)
(declining counsel’s request for a higher hourly rate, quoting Alicia B. v.
Bisignano, 2026 WL 916961, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 27, 2026)), adopted by 2026
WL 1591832 (S.D. Tex. June 3, 2026). That total is a reasonable fee award in
this case.
Recommendation
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	it 	is 	RECOMMENDED 	that 	Plaintiff’s
motion for attorneys’ fees (Dkt. 24) be GRANTED IN PART, and that Plaintiff
be 	awarded 	$8,053.28 	in 	reasonable 	attorneys’ 	fees. 	It 	is 	further
RECOMMENDED 	that 	the 	award 	be 	made 	payable 	to 	Plaintiff, 	but
Defendant may send the payment to Plaintiff’s counsel.
Signed on July 29, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________________
Yvonne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
_________________________________________
Yvon	n	nn	n	nee Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-03897 Document 25 Filed 07/29/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4