Cheryl Price v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
• Decided: December 11, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-00252
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

CHERYL PRICE,

Plaintiff, 8:25CV252

v. MEMORANDUM FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of AND ORDER Social Security,

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Cheryl Price’s (“Price”) Petition for Attorney’s Fees (Filing No. 20) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). That statute authorizes the Court to award “fees and other expenses” to a prevailing party in any civil action “brought by or against the United States,” unless the Court determines the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” Id. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Stating she meets the statutory requirements for a fee award, Price asks for $3,535.84 in attorney fees. See id. § 2412(d)(1), (2). That total consists of 13.7 hours of attorney work in 2025 by two different experienced attorneys at $258.09 per hour. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) (providing for a fee award in excess of $125 per hour if warranted by an increase in the cost of living); see also Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 504 (8th Cir. 1990) (concluding that “the Consumer Price Index constitutes ‘proper proof’ of increased cost of living” and can justify an increased EAJA attorney fee award). Defendant Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), does not object to Price’s request for fees (Filing No. 21) or argue that his position in this case was substantially justified. Along those lines, the Court notes it reversed and remanded this case on September 3, 2025, for further consideration (Filing No. 18) and entered judgment in Price’s favor (Filing No. 19) on the Commissioner’s motion (Filing No. 16). The Commissioner asks the Court to enter an award as Price requests “to be paid by the Social Security Administration.” Like Price, he notes that such an award is payable to Price but may be subject to offset under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589-90 (2010).

Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions on this issue and the balance of the record in this case, the Court finds Price is a prevailing party entitled to an EAJA fee award of $3,535.84 to be paid by the Social Security Administration. The Court agrees with the parties that Price has satisfied the statutory requirements under the EAJA, see 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), and her attorney-fee request is timely,1 reasonable, and adequately supported. With that, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff Cheryl Price’s petition for attorney fees (Filing No. 20) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), is granted. 2. Price is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $3,535.84. 3. The Social Security Administration shall make the fee award payable to Price and deliver the payment less any applicable offset to the Kappelman Law Firm at its address of record for distribution. 4. A separate judgment will issue.

1A prevailing party requesting an EAJA fee award based on a remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) must apply no later than thirty days after the judgment has been entered and the appeal period has run such that the judgment is no longer appealable. See Pottsmith v. Barnhart, 306 F.3d 526, 527-28 (8th Cir. 2002); see also Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302 (1993); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 94-97 (1991). Dated this 11th day of December 2025. BY THE COURT:

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. Chief United States District Judge