Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

WOLFE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 3:12-cv-374-CAN. (2013)

Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana Number: infdco20130821b77 Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 20, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 20, 2013
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER CHRISTOPHER A. NUECHTERLEIN, Magistrate Judge. On July 1, 2013, the Court reversed the Commissioner's final decision in this matter regarding Plaintiff Anne L. Wolfe's application for Disability Insurance Benefits and ordered that this case be remanded for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion. [Doc. No. 23]. On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. 2412. In her motion, Plaint
More

OPINION AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER A. NUECHTERLEIN, Magistrate Judge.

On July 1, 2013, the Court reversed the Commissioner's final decision in this matter regarding Plaintiff Anne L. Wolfe's application for Disability Insurance Benefits and ordered that this case be remanded for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion. [Doc. No. 23]. On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. In her motion, Plaintiff requested $4,922.00 in attorneys' fees plus $350 in costs for the filing fee. The undersigned now rules on Plaintiff's motion based on the parties' consent and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

An adverse party shall have fourteen days after service of a motion in which to serve and file a response. N.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(d)(2)(A). Failure to file a response within the time prescribed may subject the motion to summary ruling. N.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(d)(4). As of this date, Defendant has neither responded to Plaintiff's motion nor explained the lack of response. Consequently, this Court can only assume that Plaintiff's motion is unopposed. Moreover, Plaintiff timely filed the instant motion and demonstrated that the Commissioner's position was not substantially justified, that she was the prevailing party, and that the cost of living adjustment and numbers of hours expended by counsel staff are reasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1). In addition, the Commissioner has not established that Plaintiff owes no pre-existing debt subject to offset and Plaintiff has assigned his right to the award to his attorney. See Mathews-Sheets v. Astrue, 653 F.3d 560, 565-66 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2527-29 (2010)).

Therefore, the Court now GRANTS Plaintiff's motion. [Doc. No. 26]. The Court ORDERS the Commissioner to pay Plaintiff $4,922.00, payable directly to Plaintiff's attorney, Laura E. Colella at Arruda & Beaudoin, L.L.P.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer