Levy v. Commissioner of Social Security Case remanded to the Social Security Administration.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
I.S.L.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-005397
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
ON ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Plaintiff 	I.S.L. 	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 recommended below, Plaintiff’s motion should be granted in full.
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 30, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05397 Document 25 Filed 07/30/26 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. 19 (motion); Dkt. 22 (adopting memorandum and
recommendation 	(Dkt. 	22) 	to 	reverse 	and 	remand); 	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. 23
(June 25, 2026 judgment); Dkt. 24 (July 1, 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.
The next step requires reviewing the number of attorney hours worked
and the requested hourly rate. 	Plaintiff seeks recovery for 35.9 attorney
Case 4:25-cv-05397 Document 25 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
hours—10.5 hours in 2025 and 25.4 hours in 2026—at a rate of $243.29/hour
for both years. See Dkt. 24 at 1; Dkt. 24-1 at 1-2. 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 $243.29 exceeds the EAJA rate of
$125, which was last amended in 1996. 	But that requested rate it comports
with the adjusted hourly rate for 2025 ($243.29) and is lower than the one for
2026 ($247.13) after accounting for cost-of-living increases. 1 	See Nash v.
Colvin, 2025 WL 871623, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2025) (formula).
Applying the local CPI-adjusted rates ($243.29 for 2025 and $247.13 for
2026) to the number of attorney-hours worked (10.5 hours in 2025 and 25.4
hours in 2026) yields a total of $8,831.65. Plaintiff is requesting the lower sum
of $8,734.11. See Dkt. 24 at 1. The requested amount is a reasonable fee award
in this case.
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-05397 Document 25 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
Recommendation
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	it 	is 	RECOMMENDED 	that 	Plaintiff’s
motion for attorneys’ fees (Dkt. 24) be GRANTED, and that Plaintiff be
awarded 	$8,734.11 	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 30, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________________
Yvonne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
n, Texas.
________________________________________
von	nn	nee Y. Ho
nited States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-05397 Document 25 Filed 07/30/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4