Filed: Dec. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2017
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION TO AWARD PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY FEES [28 U.S.C. 2412(d)] KANDIS A. WESTMORE , Magistrate Judge . On September 18, 2017 this Court issued an order reversing the final decision of the Defendant, Nancy A. Berryhill, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner), with a remand for a rehearing. Judgment for Plaintiff was entered on the same day. In the interest of administrative and judicial economy, the parties have agreed to stipulate that an award of FIVE THOUSAN
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION TO AWARD PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY FEES [28 U.S.C. 2412(d)] KANDIS A. WESTMORE , Magistrate Judge . On September 18, 2017 this Court issued an order reversing the final decision of the Defendant, Nancy A. Berryhill, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner), with a remand for a rehearing. Judgment for Plaintiff was entered on the same day. In the interest of administrative and judicial economy, the parties have agreed to stipulate that an award of FIVE THOUSAND..
More
JOINT STIPULATION TO AWARD PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY FEES
[28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)]
KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.
On September 18, 2017 this Court issued an order reversing the final decision of the Defendant, Nancy A. Berryhill, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Commissioner), with a remand for a rehearing. Judgment for Plaintiff was entered on the same day.
In the interest of administrative and judicial economy, the parties have agreed to stipulate that an award of FIVE THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS ($5,700.00) in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) is reasonable in this case. This award is without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to seek attorney's fees under section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the offset provisions of the EAJA. However, this award shall constitute a complete release from and bar to any and all claims Plaintiff may have relating to EAJA fees and costs in connection with this action. Further, such award shall not be used as precedent in any future cases, nor be construed as a concession by the Commissioner that the original administrative decision denying benefits to Plaintiff was not substantially justified.
Under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), EAJA fees awarded by this Court belong to the Plaintiff and are subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program (31 U.S.C. § 3716(c)(3)(B) (2006)). This Court should therefore order the EAJA fees to be paid to Plaintiff. The Commissioner recognizes that Plaintiff assigned his right to EAJA fees to his attorney. If, after receiving the Court's EAJA fee order, the Commissioner (1) determines that Plaintiff does not owe a debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program; and (2) agrees to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, then the EAJA fees will be made payable to Plaintiff's attorney. However, if there is a debt owed under the Treasury Offset Program, the Commissioner does not waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, and the remaining EAJA fees after offset will be paid by a check made out to Plaintiff but delivered to Plaintiff's attorney.
Accordingly, Defendant agrees to pay Plaintiff $5,700.00 in attorney's fees.
All parties whose signature lines appear in this document have consented to its filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
