L.R.M. v. Kijakazi

Background

L.R.M. applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act in 2018. An administrative law judge denied the application in 2020. The Appeals Council overturned that decision and sent the matter back for another hearing. After a second hearing in 2022, the administrative law judge again denied benefits, and the Appeals Council declined review.

L.R.M. then filed this action and moved for summary judgment. The court granted her motion, denied the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The court found that the administrative law judge had improperly rejected L.R.M.’s symptom testimony, discounted a doctor’s mental-status evaluation, disregarded testimony from L.R.M.’s husband, daughter, and mother, and improperly assessed her residual functional capacity. Judgment was entered on September 23, 2024.

Attorney-fee request

L.R.M. sought fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which generally allows a prevailing party to recover reasonable fees and expenses in an action against the United States unless the government’s position was substantially justified or special circumstances make an award unjust. The defendant filed a notice of non-objection, but the court independently reviewed the request.

Substantial justification

The court held that the government’s position was not substantially justified. It explained that the administrative law judge’s decision lacked a reasonable basis in law and fact because of the errors identified in the earlier summary-judgment ruling. The court also found that the government’s decision to defend that ruling in court was not substantially justified. The defendant’s failure to oppose the fee motion did not eliminate the court’s obligation to review the request.

Eligibility and timeliness

Because the denial of benefits had been reversed and the case remanded, L.R.M. was a prevailing party for EAJA purposes, regardless of whether benefits would ultimately be awarded. The court also found that her net worth did not exceed the statutory limit when the action was filed, making her otherwise eligible for fees and costs. The fee application, filed on December 23, 2024, was timely.

Reasonableness of the award

The court approved L.R.M.’s attorney rate of $244.62 per hour. It also approved a $130-per-hour rate for paralegal Andrew Ragnes, relying in part on prior rate determinations for his work in comparable cases.

Although counsel had recorded 105.2 hours, counsel wrote off more than half of that time and requested payment for 27.9 attorney hours and 14.3 paralegal hours, totaling 42.2 hours. The court found those hours reasonable because the administrative record exceeded 900 pages, the summary-judgment motion presented five distinct arguments, and the billing records did not show redundant or unnecessary work. The court awarded $8,683.90 in attorney’s fees.

Expenses

L.R.M. requested compensation for a $405 filing fee, but the court found no basis for awarding that amount because the record showed that she had not paid a filing fee. The court instead awarded $49.23 for Westlaw legal-research expenses.

Payment and disposition

The court concluded that the fee award could be paid directly to L.R.M.’s counsel because L.R.M. had assigned the award and the payment remained subject to any debt offset. The court therefore granted L.R.M.’s application for attorney’s fees and costs under the EAJA and awarded $8,733.13, to be paid directly to her counsel. The supplied text does not clearly identify the magistrate judge’s name in the signature block.