Mitford v. Kijakazi

Background

Mitford appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her disability benefits. On June 9, 2021, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to remand the case for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The remand instructed the Appeals Council to return the case to an administrative law judge to reevaluate the medical evidence and Mitford’s testimony about her symptoms, allow her to submit additional evidence, and take any further action needed to complete the administrative record and issue a new decision.

Mitford then moved under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), for attorney’s fees and expenses. Her request initially sought $16,407.58 in fees, plus $1,709.92 for time spent reviewing and replying to the government’s opposition.

Reasons for the Decision

Under the EAJA, a prevailing party may receive reasonable fees and expenses when the government’s position in the litigation and the underlying agency proceeding was not substantially justified. The court found that Mitford was a prevailing party because the case had been remanded. It also found that the government’s position was not substantially justified because the remand order reflected potential agency error and the government did not argue in its opposition that its position had been justified.

The court found the requested hourly rates reasonable after adjusting them by year: $207.78 for attorney work performed in 2020 and $213.74 for attorney work performed in 2021. It also found the requested $130 hourly rate for paralegal work reasonable. The court rejected the government’s arguments that the hours were excessive, duplicative, or inadequately supported, noting that counsel had already reduced the billed time and that the case required review of a 983-page administrative record and preparation of a detailed statement of the record.

The court nevertheless applied a 10 percent reduction because the hours were high for a Social Security case that ended in stipulated remand after Mitford filed a summary-judgment motion, without a cross-motion from the government. Of the additional 8 hours claimed for the reply, the court found 4.8 hours reasonable and excluded 3.2 hours billed before the government filed its opposition.

Disposition

Judge Thomas S. Hixson GRANTED Mitford’s motion for an award of $12,406.50 in attorney’s fees and $42.11 in expenses, for a total of $12,448.61. The court ordered that the award be paid directly to Weems under Mitford’s assignment of the EAJA fees, subject to any debt offset.