Opinion
Civil Action 2:21-CV-00120
12-02-2022
MELINDA PEREZ CHARLES, Plaintiff, v. ANDREW SAUL, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION
Julie K. Hampton United States Magistrate Judge
On August 18, 2022, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Commissioner's determination that Plaintiff Melinda Perez Charles was not disabled was vacated and Plaintiff's case was remanded to the Social Security Administration for further consideration of her application for benefits (D.E. 24). Now pending is Charles's unopposed motion for attorney's fees and expenses brought pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (D.E. 24, 25). For the reasons discussed further below, it is recommended that the motion (D.E. 24) be GRANTED.
The undersigned specifically concludes that Charles is the prevailing party, the position of the United States was not substantially justified, and there are no special circumstances that make an award of fees unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Moreover, the 43.4 hours spent by counsel, the cost of living adjustment, and the $9,043.29 in fees requested are appropriate and reasonable.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the application for EAJA fees (D.E. 24) be GRANTED. It is further recommended that Charles's attorney of record be awarded the sum of $9,043.29 in attorney's fees pursuant to the EAJA and be reimbursed $402 in costs. In accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 591-98 (2010), the attorney fee award shall be made payable to Plaintiff, Michelle Perez Charles, and mailed in care of her attorney, Karl E. Osterhout, Osterhout Berger Disability Law LLC, 521 Cedar Way, Ste. 200, Oakmont, PA, 15139.
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).