Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Marquez v. Commissioner of Social Security — Court awards $1,182.76 in unopposed EAJA fees after Social Security remand

Reported / Citable

Case
Marquez v. Commissioner of Social Security
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division
Judge
Robert F. Castañeda
Date Decided
January 13, 2025
Docket No.
EP-24-CV-00327-RFC
Topics
Social Security, EAJA fees, attorney fees, remand

Background

Abraham Marquez challenged a Social Security Administration determination. On November 25, 2024, the court granted the Commissioner’s unopposed motion to reverse and remand the matter to the agency for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Marquez then moved, without opposition from the Commissioner, for attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. He requested $1,182.76 for 3.3 hours of attorney work and three hours of paralegal work, after reducing the original calculated amount following discussions with the Commissioner.

The Court’s Holding

The court granted Marquez’s EAJA-fee motion. Because he obtained a sentence-four remand, he was a prevailing party for EAJA purposes and was eligible to recover reasonable attorney fees and expenses.

The court found the requested $1,182.76 reasonable. It also directed that the award be made to Marquez, payable to his attorney of record, based on Marquez’s assignments of future EAJA fees to his counsel and the Commissioner’s lack of opposition.

Key Takeaways

  • A Social Security claimant who secures a sentence-four remand is a prevailing party under the EAJA.
  • The court found $1,182.76 reasonable for 3.3 attorney hours and three paralegal hours.
  • The EAJA award was payable to claimant’s counsel under the claimant’s fee assignments.

Why It Matters

The order illustrates the routine but important consequence of an unopposed sentence-four Social Security remand: the claimant may seek reasonable EAJA fees as the prevailing party.

It also confirms that, where supported by a claimant’s assignment and not opposed by the government, the court may direct payment of an EAJA award to counsel.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top