James v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
SYLVIA DENISE JAMES, )
)
)
CASE NO. 1:25-cv-468
Plaintiff, )
)
)
CHIEF JUDGE SARA LIOI
vs. )
)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
)
)
)
)
Defendant. )
Before the Court is the joint stipulation of the parties for an award to plaintiff under the
Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, of $7,345.21 in attorneys’ fees. (Doc.
No. 19 (Joint Stipulation for Award of EAJA Fees).) For the reasons set forth herein, the joint
stipulation is APPROVED.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 7, 2025, plaintiff Sylvia Denise James (“James”) filed this action seeking
judicial review of defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Commissioner”) denial of her
application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). (Doc. No 1 (Complaint), at 1.)1
On January 26, 2026, the magistrate judge issued her report and recommendation (“R&R”)
that the final decision of the Commissioner be vacated and remanded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) sentence four. (Doc. No. 16, at 1 (R&R).) No party filed written objections to the magistrate
1 All page number references herein are to the consecutive page numbers applied to each individual document by the
Court’s electronic filing system.
Case: 1:25-cv-00468-SL Doc #: 21 Filed: 07/10/26 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

2
judge’s R&R within the fourteen-day period. Subsequently, the Court adopted the magistrate
judge’s R&R and remanded the case to allow the administrative law judge to “consider the entire
record; accurately discuss the evidence; clearly articulate the rationale for her Step Two and Four
findings with regard to plaintiff’s mental impairments; and ensure that her stated rationale builds
an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the result.” (Doc. No. 17 (Order), at 2.)
On June 11, 2026, the parties jointly stipulated and petitioned the Court to enter an order
awarding attorneys’ fees in the amount of $7,345.21 under the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Doc. No.
19.) The Court directed James to supplement the stipulation so the Court could examine the
stipulation for reasonableness. (Order [non-document], 06/15/2026.) On June 16, 2026, James
filed a supplement in support of the parties’ stipulation for EAJA fees. (Doc. No. 20 (Supplement).)
II. DISCUSSION
The EAJA requires the government to pay a prevailing plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs
“unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that
special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see Howard v. Barnhart,
376 F.3d 551, 553 (6th Cir. 2004). There is no dispute here that the government’s position was not
substantially justified and that plaintiff is the “prevailing party” under the EAJA. See Hammock v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12-cv-250, 2015 WL 7292750, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 2015) (“A
plaintiff who wins a remand of her social security appeal in this Court is a ‘prevailing party[.]’”),
report and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 7276087 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 18, 2015).
Although the parties have stipulated to the amount of an award, the Court must still
examine it for reasonableness. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) (“fees and other expenses” includes,
inter alia, “reasonable attorney fees”). The EAJA provides that the amount of an attorney s’ fees
Case: 1:25-cv-00468-SL Doc #: 21 Filed: 07/10/26 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

3
award shall be based upon prevailing market rates, but shall not exceed $125 per hour, unless the
Court determines that the cost of living or special factors justify a higher fee. 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d)(2)(A)(ii).
Documentation submitted at the Court’s request in support of the joint stipulation shows
that a total of 33.9 hours2 of legal services were performed in 2025, including the typical legal
services of preparing the complaint, reviewing the administrative transcript, drafting plaintiff’s
brief on the merits, and reviewing court orders. (Doc. No. 20-2 (Time Entries).) The Court finds
both the amount and the nature of these legal services to be reasonable.
Plaintiff’s counsel indicates paralegal billing rates of $125.00 per hour. (Doc. No. 20, at
2.) Plaintiff’s counsel also indicates an attorney billing rate of $245.91 per hour (id.), which is an
upward departure from the $125.00 statutory cap set by Congress in March 1996. It is common,
although not required, to adjust the statutory hourly rate to account for cost-of-living increases
since 1996, the time when that rate was last capped. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796
n.4, 122 S. Ct. 1817, 152 L. Ed. 2d 996 (2002) (“A higher fee may be awarded if ‘the court
determines that an increase in the cost of living . . . justifies a higher fee.” (quoting 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d)(2)(A)(ii))); see also Hutchinson v. Colvin, No. 1:15-cv-1144, 2016 WL 6777804, at *2
(N.D. Ohio Nov. 16, 2016) (examining the appropriateness of a cost-of-living increase).
The measure of inflation in this geographic region is the Midwest Urban Consumer Price
Index (“CPI-U”), which is available on the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(http://www.bls.gov). Crenshaw v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:13-cv-1845, 2014 WL 4388154, at
2 Of this figure, 28.9 represent hours billed by attorneys and 5 represent hours billed by paralegals. (Doc. No. 20, at
2.)
Case: 1:25-cv-00468-SL Doc #: 21 Filed: 07/10/26 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

4
*3 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 5, 2014) (collecting cases). In light of the information available for the period
of time in which counsel provided services in this case, the Court finds that the $7,345.21 stipulated
award is both reasonable and adequately reflective of “the prevailing market rates for the kind and
quality of services furnished[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A).
As the parties recognize in their stipulation, any amount paid belongs to plaintiff. As further
recognized in the stipulation, this award will be in full and complete satisfaction of any and all of
plaintiff’s claims for fees, costs, and expenses, and is subject to setoff to satisfy any pre -existing
debt owed by plaintiff to the United States. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 588, 130 S. Ct.
2521, 177 L. Ed. 2d 91 (2010).
Defendant is directed to determine whether plaintiff owes any pre -existing debt to the
United States. If plaintiff owes a pre-existing debt to the United States, defendant shall direct that
the award of $7,345.21 in attorneys’ fees, less any setoff, be made payable to plaintiff’s attorney
and be mailed to the attorney’s business address. If there is no setoff, then the full award shall be
remitted.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court APPROVES the parties’ joint stipulation for an
award to plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 in the amount of $7,345.21 in attorneys’ fees (Doc.
No. 19), and this amount shall be paid in accordance with the procedure outlined above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 10, 2026
HONORABLE SARA LIOI
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case: 1:25-cv-00468-SL Doc #: 21 Filed: 07/10/26 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>