Reported / Citable
Background
Frances R. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Commissioner of Social Security’s final decision. After the Commissioner filed an unopposed motion to reverse and remand, the court entered judgment and remanded the matter for further agency proceedings under sentence four of § 405(g) on April 21, 2026.
Frances then applied for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. After the court requested supplementation concerning conferral, she confirmed that the Commissioner did not oppose the requested hourly rate, number of hours, or total award. The application sought $8,759.65 for 34.20 hours of work at $256.13 per hour.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge David L. Horan recommended granting the supplemented fee application and awarding Frances $8,759.65 under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). This document was a findings, conclusions, and recommendation—not a final order—and the parties had 14 days to file specific written objections.
The magistrate judge concluded that Frances was a prevailing party because she obtained a sentence-four judgment reversing the denial of benefits and requiring further administrative proceedings. He also found that the Commissioner had not met the burden of showing substantial justification and that no special circumstances would make a fee award unjust.
The requested fees were reasonable because the hourly rate was appropriate, the documented 34.20 hours were supported by counsel’s declarations and time records, and the amount reflected the work performed and results achieved. The magistrate judge further recommended that the Commissioner make the check payable to Frances but mail it to her attorneys’ address.
Key Takeaways
- A Social Security claimant who obtains a sentence-four remand qualifies as a prevailing party for EAJA purposes.
- The magistrate judge found the documented lodestar of $8,759.65 reasonable and the Commissioner did not oppose the rate, hours, or total requested.
- The recommendation was subject to review by the district judge, with specific objections due within 14 days after service.
Why It Matters
The recommendation illustrates the fee consequences of a sentence-four Social Security remand: even when the Commissioner agrees to remand, the claimant may recover reasonable EAJA fees if the government does not establish that its position was substantially justified.
It also underscores the importance of documenting counsel’s hours and rate and complying with conferral requirements before seeking an unopposed fee award.