Turcios Contreras v. Bisignano

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
EDGAR BENJAMIN T., 1
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO,
Acting Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
No. 4:25-cv-4182
JUDGE PALERMO’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Edgar Benjamin T.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion
for attorney’s fees. ECF No. 21. 2 The Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (“Commissioner”) does not oppose the motion. Id. at 4. Based on the
briefing, evidence, and applicable law, Plaintiff’s motion should be granted.
I. 	PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW
On November 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment,
requesting judicial review of Commissioner’s decision denying his application for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. ECF No. 12. On
1 The Court uses only Plaintiff’s first name and last initial. See “Memorandum Re: Privacy Concern
Regarding Social Security and Immigration Opinions,” Committee on Court Administration and
Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States (May 1, 2018).
2 On June 8, 2026, the district judge to whom this case is assigned referred the motion 	under
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). ECF No. 22. The Plaintiff’s motion is appropriate for report and
recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). See Revill v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,
No. 1:18-CV-634, 2021 WL 3463899, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2021).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 09, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04182 Document 22 Filed 06/09/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2
February 4, 2026, Commissioner filed a motion to reverse and remand the case to
Commissioner. ECF No. 17. On February 5, 2026, this Court determined that
Commissioner’s motion should be granted. Report and Recommendation (“R&R”),
ECF No. 18. The district judge adopted the R&R on March 6, 2026, reversed the
Commissioner’s decision that Plaintiff is not disabled, and remanded the case to
Commissioner. Order Adopting, ECF No. 19.
Plaintiff filed the instant motion under the Equal Access to Justice Act
(“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C § 2412, seeking an award of attorney’s fees and costs. ECF
No. 21. Plaintiff, in support of his motion, submitted contemporaneous time records
for the attorney who worked on the appeal. ECF No. 21 at 6–7.
II. 	PLAINTIFF SHOULD BE AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER
THE EAJA.
The EAJA permits the recovery of attorney’s fees in proceedings for judicial
review of an agency’s action. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). 3 The statute dictates that
attorney’s fees should not be awarded in excess of $125 per hour, unless the court
determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor justifies a higher
3 A party is entitled to recover attorney’s fees from the United States when, at a minimum, the
following four elements are met: (1) he is a prevailing party; (2) he timely files a fee application
supported by an itemized statement; (3) the court finds the position of the government, in the
administrative proceedings as well as before the Court, was not substantially justified; and (4) no
special circumstances make an award unjust. Perales v. Casillas, 950 F.2d 1066, 1072 (5th Cir.
1992); Mesecher v. Berryhill, No. 15-CV-859, 2017 WL 4417682, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2017);
Benoit v. Astrue, No. H-07-2939, 2008 WL 3928026, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2008). The Court
finds that Plaintiff meets these requirements and the Commissioner has not disputed it.
Case 4:25-cv-04182 Document 22 Filed 06/09/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3
fee. See id. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii). The court has wide discretion in calculating any
increase in the hourly rate. Mesecher v. Berryhill, No. 15-CV-859, 2017 WL
4417682, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2017); Chargois v. Barnhart, 454 F. Supp. 2d 631,
634 (E.D. Tex. 2006). Plaintiff’s counsel seeks an hourly fee of $258.46 for 25.85
hours worked in 2025 and 2026, for a total of $6,681.19. ECF No. 21.
Courts 	must 	determine 	whether 	the 	fee 	is 	reasonable, 	requiring 	an
examination of the number of hours worked and the rate sought. Mesecher, 2017 WL
4417682, at *2. Typically, in cases of this kind, fee applications range from twenty
to forty hours. Id. Here, Plaintiff’s attorney seeks to be compensated for 25.85 hours
and has submitted an itemized statement of the hours worked. See ECF No. 21 at 6–
7. Commissioner does not oppose an award for 25.85 hours. Id. at 4. Having
reviewed the record in the case, the Court finds that the number of hours sought is
reasonable and supported.
With regard to the rate, courts routinely use a cost-of-living adjustment based
on the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) report compiled by the United States Bureau
of Labor Statistics. E.g., Day v. Comm’r, No. 16-CV-210, 2017 WL 4922048, at *2
(E.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2017); Chargois, 454 F. Supp. 2d at 634 (collecting cases). Based
on the region where services were performed, the court will use as a base rate the
average annual CPI for the year the last time the rate changed, and then compare it
to the average annual CPI for when the attorney provided the legal services.
Case 4:25-cv-04182 Document 22 Filed 06/09/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4
Chargois, 454 F. Supp. 2d at 634; accord Perales v. Casillas, 950 F.2d 1066, 1079
(5th Cir. 1992) (instructing the court on remand to “segregate the attorneys’ hours
by year and apply the appropriate cost-of-living adjustment on an annual basis”). If
the CPI increased from the time the rate changed to the time services were
performed, “the court calculates the percentage difference and approves an excess
hourly fee corresponding to the calculated percentage increase.” Chargois, 454 F.
Supp. 2d at 634.
Here, Plaintiff’s counsel claims fees for work performed between 2025 and
2026. The CPI last changed in 1996 ($75 to $125 per hour). In 1996, the annual
average CPI for Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, Texas was 142.7. 4
The hourly rates for the relevant years are as follows:
x 	For 2025, the CPI for Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, Texas is
277.742. The percentage difference between 1996 and 2022 is 194.63%
(277.742/142.7). Therefore, the hourly rate for 2025 is $243.29/hour
(194.63% x $125/hour).
x 	For 2026, there is no annual data available. Consequently, the Court
will use the CPI for Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, Texas for
the first four months of 2026, which is 285.974. The percentage
difference 	between 	1996 	and 	2026 	is 	200.40% 	(285.974/142.7).
Therefore, the hourly rate for 2026 is $250.50/hour (200.40% x
$125/hour).
4 The Court obtained CPI numbers used to calculate Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees from this chart. See
Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, Tx,
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUURS37BSA0?amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=da
ta&include_graphs=true (last visited June 9, 2026).
Case 4:25-cv-04182 Document 22 Filed 06/09/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5
In 2025, Plaintiff’s attorney worked 21.85 hours. At $243.29/hour, this fee is
$5,315.89. 5 In 2026, Plaintiff’s attorney worked 4.0 hours. At $250.50/hour, this fee
is $1,002.00. The sum of the fees is $6,317.89. The Court finds that this fee is
reasonable for the hours worked. See Mesecher, 2017 WL 4417682, at *2; Day, 2017
WL 4922048, at *2.
III. 	CONCLUSION.
The 	Court 	RECOMMENDS 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	motion 	for 	attorney’s 	be
GRANTED, and Plaintiff should be awarded $6,317.89 in attorney’s fees.
The 	parties 	have 	fourteen 	days 	from 	service 	of 	this 	Report 	and
Recommendation to file written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b). Failure to file timely objections will preclude appellate review of
factual findings and legal conclusions, except for plain error. Ortiz v. City of San
Antonio Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825 (5th Cir. 2015).
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on June 9, 2026.
_______________________________
Dena Hanovice Palermo
United States Magistrate Judge
5 Plaintiff’s attorney came to a slightly higher calculation of fees using a different rate. Because
the totals do not vary significantly, and to promote uniformity in the division, the Court uses the
rates as noted above. See Dickerson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 4:18-CV-4578, 2020 WL
13597595, at *2 (S.D. Tex. June 23, 2020) (citing Mesecher, 2017 WL 4417682, at *2).
on June 9, 2026.
____________________________
Dena Hanovice Palermo
nited States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-04182 Document 22 Filed 06/09/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5