Peters v. Colvin
Filing
29
ORDER re: 28 Stipulation. Defendant will pay Plaintiff a total of $3,900.00 in EAJA fees. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 06/05/2015. (athom, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00141-RBJ
CLAUDIA S. PETERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
Upon consideration of the parties’ joint stipulation (ECF No. 28) for fees 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 $3,900.00 in EAJA fees. This amount is
payable to Plaintiff, not directly to her counsel. 1 Payment will be sent to the office of Plaintiff’s
attorney: Gail C. Harriss, Esq.; HARRISS & MARTINEZ, LLC; 450 S. Camino del Rio, Suite
201; Durango, CO 81301.
1
The Commissioner recognizes that Plaintiff has assigned her right to EAJA fees to her counsel.
If, after receiving the Court’s EAJA fee order, the Commissioner determines that Plaintiff does
not owe a debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, then the
Commissioner will agree to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, and 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 cannot agree to 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.
1
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 counsels’
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.
DATED this 5th day of June, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?