Vanegdom v. Social Security Administration, No. 2:2015cv00035 - Document 27 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS adopting Report and Recommendations re 21 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff Carol Vanegdom's motion for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED and the Court awards Carol Vanegdom attorney's fees in the amount of $3,596.25.. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 9/16/16. (jjs)

Download PDF
Vanegdom v. Social Security Administration Doc. 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CAROL LEA VANEGDOM CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 15-35 CAROLYN W. COLVIN ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION SECTION: R (4) ORD ER The Court, finding that as of this date neither party has filed any objections to the Magistrate J udge’s Report and Recom m endation,1 hereby approves the Report as m odified herein. The Equal Access to J ustice Act (EAJ A) provides that the am ount of fees awarded to a prevailing party should be “based upon prevailing m arket rates for the kind and quality of the services furnished, except that . . . attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $ 125 per hour unless the court determ ines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor . . . justifies a higher fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) (20 12). As found by the Magistrate 2 and conceded by the Governm ent,3 the appropriate m arket rate 1 R. Doc. 26. 2 R. Doc. 26 at 3-4. 1 Dockets.Justia.com for work perform ed in Social Security appeals in the Eastern District of Louisiana is $ 175 per hour. See, e.g., Kolb v. Colvin, No. 13-50 85, 20 16 WL 258621, at *3 (E.D. La. J an. 21, 20 16); Joiner v. Colvin, No. 14-1315, 20 15 WL 6442710 , at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 23, 20 15); Hallaron v. Colvin, No. 1220 51, 20 15 WL 40 42144, at *2 (E.D. La. J uly 1, 20 15). This rate is higher than the statutory cap of $ 125 per hour, and therefore m ust be justified by either a special factor or an increase in the cost of living. See Hall v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 367, 370 (5th Cir. 1995). Adjustm ents to the cap based on the cost of living are routine. Id. at 369 (citing Pierce v. Underw ood, 487 U.S. 552, 571-74 (1988)) (finding that the Suprem e Court has “treated cost of living adjustm ent as part of the cap itself”). Here, increases in the cost of living perm it the hourly rate to exceed the statutory cap. Cost-of-living adjustm ents are m easured from when Congress raised the cap to $ 125 per hour, March 1996, to the year in which the attorney worked. See Contract with Am erica Advancem ent Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 10 4– 121, § 232, 110 Stat 847 (1996) (codified as am ended at 28 U.S.C. § 2412); Perales v. Casillas, 950 F.2d 10 66, 10 76 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding that inflation m ust be calculated according to the year in which the work was perform ed to avoid awarding interest against the United States); 3 R. Doc. 23 at 3. 2 Baker v. Bow en, 839 F.2d 10 75, 10 84 (5th Cir. 1988 ) (holding that the calculation begins at the date the cap was enacted). Attorney Spurlock’s representation in late 20 14 provides the m ost conservative cap am ount.4 The Court finds that the Consum er Price Index for All Urban Consum ers (CPI-U) is an appropriate m easure of inflation, see Bode v. United States, 919 F.2d 10 44, n.8 (5th Cir. 1990 ) (finding the CPI-U appropriate for an analogous attorney fee provision), and that its use is consistent with other courts in this district, see, e.g., Kolb, 20 16 WL 258621, at *2; J.M. v. Soc. Sec. Adm in., No. 14-79, 20 15 WL 6438897, at *2, n.3 (E.D. La. Oct. 21, 20 15).5 The CPI-U rose from 155.7 in March of 1996 to 237.1 in the second half of 20 14, an increase of 52.3 percent. See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, CPI Detailed Report 93, 125 (Malik Crawford et al. eds. J an. 20 15), http:/ / www.bls.gov/ cpi/ cpid150 1.pdf. A corresponding increase in the statutory cap raises it to $ 190 .38 per hour. This increase does not, however, alter the statute’s m andate to award reasonable fees. 4 See R. Doc. 21-1. The precise am ount that inflation increased from 20 14 to 20 15 and 20 16 is not relevant because the 20 14 data already pushes the cap above the m arket rate. 5 Using the CPI for All Urban Consum ers in the South urban region would also raise the cap to m ore than $ 175. See Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, http:/ / data.bls.gov/ pdq/ SurveyOutputServlet?data_ tool=dropm ap&series _ id=CUUR0 30 0 SA0 ,CUUS0 30 0 SA0 (last visited Sept. 13, 20 16). 3 Hall, 50 F.3d at 370 . It m erely changes the m axim um am ount that m ay be awarded. Id. Therefore, the Court finds that the hourly rate of $ 175 is both reasonable and, because it is less than the m odified statutory cap, allowable. Applying this rate to the 20 .55 hours of work found by the Magistrate 6 and conceded by the Governm ent 7 yields a total of $ 3,596.25. Accordingly, Plaintiff Carol Vanegdom ’s m otion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED and the Court awards Carol Vanegdom attorney’s fees in the am ount of $ 3,596.25. 16th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of Septem ber, 20 16. ___________________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 6 R. Doc. 26 at 5-6. 7 See R. Doc. 23 at 1. The Governm ent appears to have overlooked Vanegdom ’s request for an additional three hours of work preparing the EAJ A petition, but m ade no objection to the Magistrate’s Report and Recom m endation. See id.; R. Doc. 26 at 6. 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.