Filed: Nov. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER WILEY Y. DANIEL , Senior District Judge . THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Joint Stipulation for EAJA Fees (ECF No. 30). Upon consideration of the parties' joint stipulation for fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412 et seq., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request is GRANTED as follows: 1. Defendant will pay Plaintiff a total of $9,206.20 in EAJA fees. This amount is payable to Plaintiff, not directly to his counsel. 1 Payment will be sent
Summary: ORDER WILEY Y. DANIEL , Senior District Judge . THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Joint Stipulation for EAJA Fees (ECF No. 30). Upon consideration of the parties' joint stipulation for fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412 et seq., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request is GRANTED as follows: 1. Defendant will pay Plaintiff a total of $9,206.20 in EAJA fees. This amount is payable to Plaintiff, not directly to his counsel. 1 Payment will be sent t..
More
ORDER
WILEY Y. DANIEL, Senior District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Joint Stipulation for EAJA Fees (ECF No. 30). Upon consideration of the parties' joint stipulation for fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 et seq., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request is GRANTED as follows:
1. Defendant will pay Plaintiff a total of $9,206.20 in EAJA fees. This amount is payable to Plaintiff, not directly to his counsel.1 Payment will be sent to the office of Plaintiff's attorney: Joseph A. Whitcomb, Esq.; Rocky Mountain Disability Law Group; 1391 Speer Blvd., Suite 705; Denver, CO 80204.
2. Defendant's payment of this amount bars any and all claims Plaintiff may have relating to EAJA fees and expenses in connection with this action.
3. Defendant's payment of this amount is without prejudice to Plaintiff's counsel's right to seek attorney fees under section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the offset provisions of the EAJA.
4. This Order will not be used as precedent in any future cases, and should not be construed as a concession that the Commissioner's administrative decision denying benefits to Plaintiff was not substantially justified.
