Arnao v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:18-cv-06801
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Arnao v. Commissioner, Judge Karas granted in part Arnao’s fee motion and awarded $7,035.43.
Vincent Arnao receives a $7,035.43 EAJA award from the Commissioner of Social Security Administration; the Commissioner must pay the award.
What happened
In Arnao v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Vincent Arnao challenged the denial of his Social Security Disability benefits. The case was sent back to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings under a federal law provision after the parties agreed that the earlier decision should be reversed.
Arnao then asked for $7,283.65 in attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Commissioner did not oppose the request. The court found that Arnao qualified for an award, that the requested expenses were reasonable, and that most of the billed attorney time and hourly rates were reasonable.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the motion in part and ordered the Commissioner to pay Arnao $7,035.43. The court deducted payment for 1.2 hours it found unreasonable and duplicative, reducing the attorney-fee portion to $6,614.43 and awarding $421.00 in expenses.
The detailed version
- Arnao v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · No. 7:18-cv-06801
- Kenneth Karas
- Feb. 21, 2024
Background
Vincent Arnao filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration’s final decision denying his application for Social Security Disability benefits. After the parties agreed that the prior decision should be reversed, the court remanded the case to the Commissioner under sentence four of § 405(g). A sentence-four remand sends the case back for further administrative proceedings and makes the plaintiff a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
Fee Motion
Arnao sought $7,283.65 under the EAJA: $6,862.65 in attorney’s fees and $421.00 in expenses. The expenses consisted of a $400.00 filing fee and $21.00 for serving the summons and complaint by certified mail. The Commissioner did not oppose the motion.
The court explained that an EAJA award generally requires the claimant to be a prevailing party, the government’s position not to have been substantially justified, no special circumstances making an award unfair, and a timely, itemized application. The court found that Arnao was a prevailing party because of the sentence-four remand. It treated the Commissioner’s failure to oppose the motion as a concession that the government could not show its position was substantially justified. The court also independently found no special circumstances that would make an award improper.
Reasonableness of the Requested Amount
The court found the $421.00 in expenses reasonable and recoverable. It also found the attorney’s hourly rates reasonable: $203.58 for work performed in 2018, $206.84 for work performed in 2019, and $213.79 for work performed in 2021. These rates included cost-of-living adjustments permitted under the EAJA.
Arnao requested compensation for 33.2 hours of work. The court found the total hours reasonable except for a 1.2-hour entry dated January 18, 2021. The court found that entry unclear, unreasonable, and duplicative because it described an “initial review” of Arnao’s file long after the complaint had been filed and might duplicate other billing entries. The court therefore declined to award fees for those 1.2 hours. The opinion also states that the billing entry appears to have been intended for January 18, 2019, rather than 2021, based on its placement and billing rate.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted Arnao’s motion in part. The court awarded $1,058.61 for 5.2 hours of attorney work in 2018, $5,171.00 for 25 hours in 2019, and $384.82 for 1.8 hours in 2021, for attorney’s fees totaling $6,614.43. Adding $421.00 in expenses, the total award was $7,035.43. The Commissioner was ordered to pay that amount to Arnao, and the Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.