IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MOLLY BRICK,
Plaintiff, 8:25CV558
v.
MEMORANDUM
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of AND ORDER
Social Security,
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Molly Brick’s (“Brick”) Petition for
Attorney’s Fees (Filing No. 16) under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C.
§ 2412(d). That statute authorizes the Court to award “fees and other expenses” to a
prevailing party in any civil action “brought by or against the United States,” unless the
Court determines the government’s position in the case was “substantially justified or that
special circumstances make an award unjust.” Id. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
Brick’s motion follows this Court’s Order (Filing No. 14) granting defendant Frank
Bisignano’s, Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), Unopposed Motion to
Reverse and Remand (Filing No. 12) his prior denial of Brick’s claim for disability benefits
under Title II of the Social Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. In that Order, the
Court remanded Brick’s case for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of section
205(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Given that success, Brick requests an award of EAJA attorney fees in the amount of
$777.02, arguing the Commissioner’s position “was not substantially justified” under
§ 2412(d)(1)(A). Her requested award reflects 2.5 hours of attorney work in 2025 at
$258.46 per hour and .5 hour of attorney work in 2026 at $261.74 per hour. The
Commissioner “does not object to an award of attorney fees in this amount” but notes it
may be subject to offset under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 593 (2010).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record in this case, including Brick’s clear
documentation of her counsel’s billable hours and rates. Based on that review, the Court
finds Brick is a prevailing party entitled to an EAJA fee award of $777.02 to be paid by
the Social Security Administration. Brick meets the EAJA’s statutory requirements, see
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), and her attorney-fee request is timely,! reasonable, and
supported by the record. Although the EAJA award is payable to Brick, it can be sent to
her counsel for distribution as she requests. See Ratliff, 560 U.S. at 589-90.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff Molly Brick’s petition for attorney fees (Filing No. 16) under the
Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), is granted.
2. Brick is awarded attorney fees in the amount of $777.02.
3. The Social Security Administration shall make the fee award payable to
Brick and deliver the payment to the Kappelman Law Firm at its address of
record.
4. A separate judgment will issue.
Dated this 13th day of April 2026.
BY THE COURT:
Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge
‘A prevailing party requesting an EAJA fee award based on a remand under
sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) must apply no later than thirty days after the judgment
has been entered and the appeal period has run such that the judgment is no longer
appealable. See Pottsmith v. Barnhart, 306 F.3d 526, 527-28 (8th Cir. 2002); see also
Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302 (1993); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 94-97
(1991).
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.