Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:23-cv-00131
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Hixson granted Garcia’s motion for $10,526.72 in Equal Access to Justice Act attorney’s fees.
Ian Martin Garcia and his counsel, Olinsky Law Group, received an award of $10,526.72, payable directly to Olinsky subject to any debt offset. The Commissioner of Social Security is affected because the government must pay the award.
What happened
In Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security, Ian Martin Garcia appealed the denial of Social Security disability benefits. The court had approved the parties’ agreement to send the case back for further proceedings.
Garcia then asked for $10,526.72 in attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a law that can require the government to pay fees when its position was not reasonably justified. The government did not oppose the request.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson granted the motion for $10,526.72. The award will be paid directly to Garcia’s lawyer, Olinsky Law Group, subject to any offset for debts Garcia owes the government.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 3:23-cv-00131
- Thomas Hixson
- Feb. 21, 2024
Background
Ian Martin Garcia filed a Social Security appeal after the Commissioner denied his disability-benefits claim. The parties later stipulated to a remand under section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, and the court approved that stipulation. The remand required the Commissioner to reassess the fifth step of the disability evaluation, including obtaining vocational-expert evidence and addressing inconsistencies between that testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. The Commissioner also had to further develop the record as necessary, offer Garcia a new hearing, and issue a new decision.
Garcia moved for attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), seeking $10,526.72.
Court’s Analysis
The EAJA requires an award of fees and expenses when a party prevails in a civil action and the government’s position, including the underlying agency action and its litigation position, was not substantially justified. The court found that Garcia was a prevailing party because the case was remanded.
The court also found that the government’s position was not substantially justified. The remand order reflected potential error, and the government did not argue that its position was justified.
The court found the requested hourly rates reasonable. Garcia sought $234.95 per hour for attorney work performed in 2022, $242.78 per hour for attorney work performed in 2023, and $130 per hour for paralegal work. The court explained that the EAJA’s $125 hourly cap may be increased for cost-of-living changes and concluded that the requested rates were reasonable. Garcia’s counsel billed 49.7 hours, and the parties agreed to resolve the fee request at the reduced amount of $10,526.72. The court found that agreement reasonable.
Disposition
The court GRANTED Garcia’s motion for an award of $10,526.72. Because Garcia assigned his EAJA fees to Olinsky Law Group, the award will be paid directly to Olinsky, subject to any debt offset.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.