Filed: Mar. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2016
Summary: ORDER WILEY Y. DANIEL , Senior District Judge . Upon consideration of the parties' joint stipulation for fees (ECF No. 22) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412 et seq., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendant will pay Plaintiff a total of $5,000.00 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: David F. Chermol, Esq.; Chermol & Fishman, LLC; 11450 Bustleton Ave.; Phi
Summary: ORDER WILEY Y. DANIEL , Senior District Judge . Upon consideration of the parties' joint stipulation for fees (ECF No. 22) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412 et seq., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendant will pay Plaintiff a total of $5,000.00 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: David F. Chermol, Esq.; Chermol & Fishman, LLC; 11450 Bustleton Ave.; Phil..
More
ORDER
WILEY Y. DANIEL, Senior District Judge.
Upon consideration of the parties' joint stipulation for fees (ECF No. 22) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 et seq., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendant will pay Plaintiff a total of $5,000.00 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: David F. Chermol, Esq.; Chermol & Fishman, LLC; 11450 Bustleton Ave.; Philadelphia, PA 19116.
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 or the agency's defense thereof was not substantially justified.
