Pope v. SSA Commissioner — $5,544 EAJA Fee Award

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Leona A. Pope v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner, Social Security Administration

District Court, W.D. Arkansas

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 6:25-cv-06048

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

LEONA A. POPE PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:25-CV-06048-MEF

FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner,
Social Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff brought this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g), seeking judicial review
of the Commissioner’s final decision denying disability benefits. (ECF No. 2). The parties
subsequently consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge for all
purposes in the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c). (ECF No.6). On February 2, 2026, the
undersigned entered a Judgment reversing and remanding the matter upon the Commissioner’s
Unopposed Motion for Reversal and Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g).
(ECF Nos. 18-20). Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Under the
Equal Access to Justice Act. (ECF No. 21). The Commissioner has filed a Response, stating he
does not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion. (ECF No. 22). The Court has carefully considered the issues,
and for the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff filed her Motion on April 2, 2026, seeking attorney’s fees and costs under 28
U.S.C. § 2412, the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), in the amount of $5,544.00, representing
a total of 22 attorney hours for work performed in 2025 and 2026 at an hourly rate of $252.00.
(ECF No. 21, 21-1). On April 6, 2026, Defendant filed a response affirmatively stating he had no
objections to Plaintiff’s prevailing party status, the issue of substantial justification, or the
attorney’s itemized request for a total award of $5,544.00, specifying an hourly rate of $252.00 for
22 hours’ total time expended on Plaintiff’s case. (ECF No. 22, p. 2).
It is the opinion of the undersigned that Plaintiff is entitled to a fee award in this case, as
she is the prevailing party, the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits was not substantially
justified, the hourly rate requested by Plaintiff’s attorney does not exceed the CPI for either year

in question, and the time asserted to have been spent in the representation of the Plaintiff before
the Court is reasonable. See Jackson v. Bowen, 807 F.2d 127, 128 (8th Cir. 1986) (burden is on the
Commissioner to show substantial justification for the denial of benefits); 28 U.S.C. §
2412 (d)(2)(A) (statutory ceiling for an EAJA fee award is $125.00 per hour); Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 504-505 (8th Cir. 1990) (court may determine that there has been an increase in the
cost of living, and may thereby increase the attorney’s rate per hour, based upon the United States
Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index (“CPI”)); and, Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,
430 (1983) (reasonableness of award entails consideration of the following factors: the time and
labor required; difficulty of questions involved; skill required to handle the problems presented;

the attorney’s experience, ability, and reputation; the benefits resulting to the client from the
services; the customary fee for similar services; the contingency or certainty of compensation; the
results obtained; and, the amount involved). Upon consideration of the foregoing authority and
relevant factors, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to an attorney’s fee award under
EAJA in the amount of $5,544.00.
Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 596 (2010), the EAJA fee award should be
made payable to Plaintiff; however, if Plaintiff has executed a valid assignment to her attorney of
all rights in a fee award and Plaintiff owes no outstanding debt to the federal government, the
attorney’s fee may be awarded directly to Plaintiff’s attorney.
The parties are reminded that, to prevent double recovery by counsel for Plaintiff, the award
herein under the EAJA will be considered at such time as a reasonable fee is determined pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 406.
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $5,544.00 for attorney’s fees
pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.

Dated this 17th day of April 2026.

/s/
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE