Cedo-Trabal v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

JOHABEN CEDO-TRABAL, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

CIVIL NO. 19-1676 (GLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

June 23, 2021

OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before this Court is Plaintiff Johaben Cedo-Trabal's ("Plaintiff") motion for attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §2412 (d) (Docket No. 31), which stands unopposed by the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner"). Upon reviewing Plaintiff's request for the award of fees and the applicable law, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.

I. Procedural Background

On July 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Complaint seeking review of a final decision of the Commissioner which denied his application for disability insurance benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 423. Docket No. 1. On January 13, 2020, the Commissioner answered the Complaint and the following day filed the transcript of the administrative record. Docket Nos. 7 and 8. On December 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in support of his request to reverse or remand the Commissioner's decision. Docket No. 10. The Commissioner filed various requests for extensions of time to submit an opposition to Plaintiff's memorandum of law. Docket Nos. 13, 17 and 26. However, the opposition was not filed.

On March 25, 2021, the Commissioner asked the Court to reverse its final decision and remand the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Docket No. 28. Pursuant to the Commissioner's request— to which Plaintiff consented— further proceedings and a new hearing would further develop the administrative record and allow the Administrative Law Judge to re-evaluate the medical source opinion evidence on Plaintiff's hospitalizations and, if necessary, issue a new decision. Id. The Court granted the Commissioner's request and, on March 29, 2021, entered Judgment remanding the case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. §405(g). Docket Nos. 29 and 30.

On April 29, 2021, Plaintiff moved for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d) ("EAJA"). Docket No. 31. Plaintiff claims that he is entitled to attorney's fees since he is the "prevailing party" under Section 204(a) of the EAJA; is not an individual whose net worth exceeds two million dollars; the position of the United States in this litigation was not substantially justified, and no "special circumstances" make an award of fees unjust. Id.

Plaintiff's fee petition was timely filed after this Court issued the Judgment to remand the matter to the administrative forum, and the Commissioner did not oppose Plaintiff's request. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's request for an award of attorney's fees in the total amount of $5,687.00 is GRANTED.

II. Discussion

A. Fees under the EAJA

The EAJA is a "fee-shifting statute that creates a right to attorney's fees in appropriate civil actions against the United States". Rivera-Quintana v. Commissioner of Social Security, 692 F.Supp.2d 223, 225 (1^st Cir. 2010) (citing Perkins v. Astrue, 568 F.Supp.2d 102, 103 (D.Mass.2008)). The statute was enacted "to ensure that aggrieved individuals will not be prevented from seeking redress from erroneous governmental action by defraying the cost of attorney fees and other legal expenses in civil actions under special circumstances." B. Samuels, 2 Social Security Disability Claims Practice & Procedure§ 21:113 (2nd ed.); see also Perkins v. Astrue, 568 F.Supp.2d 102 (D.Mass. 2008). In essence, the purpose of the EAJA is "to eliminate for the average person the financial disincentive to challenge unreasonable governmental actions." Comm'r I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163 (1990).

Section 2412(d)(1)(A) of the EAJA establishes that "a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses ... incurred by that party in any civil action ... including proceedings for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, 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). Eligibility for a fee award in any civil action under the EAJA requires: (1) that the claimant be a "prevailing party"; (2) that the Government's position was not "substantially justified"; (3) that no special circumstances make an award unjust; and (4) that any fee application be submitted to the court within 30 days of final judgment, supported by an itemized statement as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). See Comm'r INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. at 158. The Court finds that Plaintiff has complied with these four requirements.

If a party's complaint served to achieve a favorable result or an eventual award of benefits the party is considered a "prevailing party". 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The United States Supreme Court has held that a social security plaintiff who obtains a remand reversing the Commissioner's decision under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is the "prevailing party" under the EAJA. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 301-302 (1993). Here, the Court entered Judgment reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding this action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Thus, Plaintiff is the prevailing party. See Santiago-Aybar v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 545 F. Supp. 2d 231, 236 (D.P.R. 2008); Blaney v. Saul, 2020 WL 6162944 (D. Mass. 2020).

The second requirement for the award of attorney's fees— that the Government's position not be substantially justified— is easily met by Plaintiff since his request for fees was unopposed by the Commissioner. "The Supreme Court has explained that for a government position to be 'substantially justified,' it must have 'a reasonable basis in law and fact' and be 'justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.'" McDonald v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 884 F.2d 1468, 1475 (1^st Cir. 1989) (quoting Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 566 n.2 (1988)). The Commissioner bears the burden of showing substantial justification both as to the government agency's "litigating position" and the underlying agency action. See McDonald, 884 F.2d at 1475-76 (citing United States v. Yoffe, 775 F.2d 447, 450 (1^st Cir. 1985)). Since the Commissioner did not contest Plaintiff's motion, and the burden to show substantial justification falls on the Government, the Court finds that the Commissioner's position was not substantially justified. Ramos v. Commissioner, 2012 WL 2711005, at *3 (D.P.R.).

Plaintiff also easily meets the third requirement because the Commissioner, by failing to file an opposition to Plaintiff's motion, made no showing of "special circumstances" to justify the denial of attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). And after reviewing the record, theCourt finds that there are no such special circumstances that would make an award of attorney's fees "unjust." See De Jesús Nazario v. Morris Rodríguez, 554 F.3d 196, 200 (1^st Cir. 2009) ("the sorts of 'special circumstances' that would permit the outright denial of a fee award ... are few and far between"). If the Commissioner cannot show substantial justification or special circumstances, an award of fees to a prevailing party is mandatory. See 28 U.S.C.A. §2412; Rivera-Quintana, 692 F. Supp. 2d at 225 (citing Trinidad v. Secretary of HHS, 935 F.2d 13, 15 (1^st Cir. 1991)(abuse of discretion in denying a fee application when the government has not contested prevailing status, established its position was substantially justified nor objected to the fee request)).

Finally, the EAJA requires that a party file a fee application within thirty (30) days of final judgment accompanied by an itemized statement documenting the time expended and the rate at which fees are computed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1)(B). The United States Supreme Court has provided that "[a]n EAJA application may be filed until 30 days after a judgment becomes [ ] [un]appealable, that is, 30 days after the time for appeal has ended." Shalala, 509 U.S. at 302 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412(d)(1)(B), (d)(2)(G)). Further, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(a)(B), a judgment in a social security appeal becomes final and unappealable sixty (60) days after its entry. Thus, Plaintiff had ninety days (90) from the entry of Judgment on March 29, 2021 to file his EAJA petition. Plaintiff's request was timely filed on April 29, 2021 and included an itemized statement of the time expended and the rates at which the fees were computed.

B. Computation of Fee Award

Reasonable fees under the EAJA are determined by calculating the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable rate. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); Rivera Quintana, 692 F.Supp.2d at 226 (citing Torres-Rivera v. O'Neill-Cancel, 524 F.3d 331, 336-337(1^st Cir. 2008) (when faced with fee-shifting statutes such as theEAJA, courts usually determine reasonable attorney's fees by using the lodestar method, which entails multiplying the number of hours productively spent by a reasonable hourly rate, and once the time reasonably expended is ascertained, the court must focus on the rates to be applied to these hours)). The hours worked by an attorney "are considered acceptable if they are 'reasonable in relation to the difficulty, stakes, and outcome of the case', and where the work carried out 'would have been undertaken by a reasonable and prudent lawyer to advance or protect his client's interests'". 10 Business & Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts §105:41 (4th ed.), Westlaw (update December 2020)(internal citations omitted). A prevailing party can recover for work related to the fee application itself. McDonald, 884 F.2d at 1480-81.

In analyzing the hours productively spent by an attorney, "...