Powell v. Commissioner of Social Security
This text of Powell v. Commissioner of Social Security (Powell v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
VICKI JO POWELL, § § Petitioner, § § v. § Case No. 2:20-cv-0374-JRG-RSP § COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY § ADMINISTRATION, § § Defendant. §
MEMORANDUM ORDER Currently before the Court is the Motion for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Dkt. No. 21), filed by Petitioner on October 14, 2021. The motion seeks compensation for19.45 hours at the adjusted statutory rates permitted by the Act, for a total of $4,120.37, plus costs of $402.00. The Commissioner does not oppose the requested award of fees and costs. (Dkt. No. 22). The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. §2412, allows a prevailing party in litigation against the United States, including a petitioner for Social Security benefits, to recover his attorney’s fees “unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” Id. at §2412 (d)(1)(a). The Supreme Court has explained that “EAJA fees are determined not by a percent of the amount recovered, but by the ‘time expended’ and the attorney’s ‘hourly rate,’” which is statutorily capped. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 794, 122 S.Ct. 1817, 152 L.Ed.2d 996 (2002). See generally, Murkeldove v. Astrue, 635 F.3d 784, 789 (5th Cir. 2011). The Commissioner does not contend, nor does the Court find, that the position of the government was substantially justified or that any special circumstances exist rendering an award unjust. The Court finds that Petitioner’s requested fee is appropriate. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant will pay Petitioner $4,120.37 in EAJA fees, plus $402.00 in costs, for a total of $4,522.37. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010), this award will be payable to Petitioner, by delivery to her counsel of record. SIGNED this 5th day of January, 2022.
9. Voy 3 Vey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Powell v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/powell-v-commissioner-of-social-security-txed-2022.