United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee
KISHIA D. SCOTT, Plaintiff,
ANDREW M. SAUL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b), the Rules of this Court, and the consent of the
parties [Doc. 14]. Now before the Court is the
Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2412 [Doc. 23], filed on June 18, 2019.
Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order awarding $5,
138.12 in attorney's fees and $24.00 in expenses under
the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28
U.S.C. Â§ 2412(d)(1).
25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and
Memorandum in Support [Docs. 17 & 18], and on August 9,
2018, the Commissioner filed a competing Motion for Summary
Judgment and Memorandum in Support [Docs. 19 & 20]. The
Court entered a Memorandum Opinion [Doc. 21] on March 20,
2019, granting in part the Plaintiff's motion and denying
the Commissioner's motion. Specifically, the Court
ordered that the case be remanded to the Administrative Law
Judge to reconsider the medical opinion of a consultative
examiner, specifically with respect to the opined standing
and walking limitations. Plaintiff subsequently filed the
instant motion on June 18, 2019, and the Commissioner filed a
response [Doc. 29] on July 31, 2019, stating that he had no
opposition to the motion.
before the Court is the Plaintiff's request for
attorney's fees under the EAJA. Four conditions must be
met before fees will be awarded under the EAJA:
1. Plaintiff must be a prevailing party;
2. The Commissioner's position must be without
3. No. special circumstances warranting denial of fees may
4. The application for attorney fees must be filed within 30
days of the final judgment in the action.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1). The Court will
address each consideration in turn.
The Plaintiff is the Prevailing Party
case, the Plaintiff obtained a “sentence four”
remand, which, for purposes of EAJA fees, renders him a
“prevailing party.” See Melkonyan v.
Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991). Thus, the Court finds the
first condition for granting attorney's fees under the
EAJA has been met.
The Commissioner's Position was without Substantial
satisfy the “substantial justification”
requirement, the Commissioner's position must be
justified “both in fact and in law, to a degree that
could satisfy a reasonable person.” Jankovich v.
Bowen, 868 F.2d 867, 869 (6th Cir. 1989). In this case,
the Commissioner has stated that he does not oppose the
Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees under the
EAJA [Doc. 29], thereby conceding that the Commissioner's
position in this matter was not ...