Appling v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Shakima Appling applied for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits, alleging disability beginning January 28, 2017. The Social Security Administration denied the application. After an administrative hearing, an administrative law judge denied benefits, and the Appeals Council declined review.

Appling challenged that decision in an earlier round of the case. By agreement of the parties, the court reversed the administrative law judge’s decision and sent the matter back to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. A second administrative law judge later denied benefits again, and the Appeals Council declined review.

Appling filed this action challenging the second decision. The Commissioner moved to reverse that decision and send the case back for further proceedings. The Commissioner conceded that the administrative law judge had not properly applied the regulations and that the evaluation of a doctor’s opinions was not supported by substantial evidence. Appling did not oppose a remand but argued that the court should instead remand for a calculation of benefits. On August 23, 2022, the court granted the Commissioner’s request for a remand for further proceedings and denied Appling’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as moot.

Fee Motion

Appling moved for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The EAJA generally requires an award of reasonable fees to a prevailing party in a civil action against the United States unless the government’s position was substantially justified or special circumstances would make an award unjust.

The Commissioner did not oppose the motion. The court treated that failure to respond as a concession that Appling was a prevailing party and that the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified. The court therefore found Appling eligible for fees and costs under the EAJA.

Appling assigned her rights to the EAJA fees to Pierre Pierre Law, P.C. Two attorneys recorded 39.27 hours, and paralegals recorded 7.63 hours, for a total of 46.9 hours. The firm requested an attorney rate of $228.99 per hour and a paralegal rate of $100 per hour, for a total of $9,755.43.

Reasonableness of the Fees

The court explained that the EAJA ordinarily limits attorney fees to $125 per hour, subject to an increase based on factors such as increased cost of living. Using the consumer price index for the relevant region and period, the court calculated an adjusted rate of approximately $229.12 per hour. Because the requested attorney rate of $228.99 was below that amount, the court found it reasonable. The court also found the $100 paralegal rate and the total hours reasonable, noting that the Commissioner had not objected.

Ruling

The court granted the motion and awarded Pierre Pierre Law, P.C. $9,755.43 in EAJA fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the fee-motion docket entry.