M.V. v. Saul

Background

M.V. had appealed a final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The only issue in that appeal was M.V.’s literacy. On January 24, 2022, the court granted M.V.’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, remanded the matter for further development of the record, and entered judgment.

M.V. then requested $4,070.14 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that can require the government to pay fees when a party successfully challenges the government’s position. The Commissioner did not respond.

Fee eligibility

The court explained that an EAJA fee applicant must show that the applicant is a prevailing party, filed a timely and properly supported request, and that the government’s position was not substantially justified. The court also must find that no special circumstances would make an award unfair.

The court found that M.V. was a prevailing party because she obtained a remand on the only disputed issue. It also found that her fee motion was timely. Because the Commissioner did not respond, the Commissioner did not meet the burden of showing that the government’s litigation position was substantially justified. The court found no special circumstances that would make an award unjust.

Amount of the award

The court found the hours described by M.V.’s counsel to be reasonable. Counsel requested an hourly rate of $225, which the court treated as a request for an increase to the EAJA’s statutory hourly rate based on cost-of-living increases.

The EAJA generally caps fees at $125 per hour but allows cost-of-living adjustments. Applying the appropriate rates for the years in which the work was performed—2020 and 2021—the court awarded fees totaling $3,874.76.

Ruling

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi granted as modified M.V.’s motion for fees under the EAJA. The award was $3,874.76, subject to offset against any debts M.V. owes the United States.