Carrillo v. Colvin

Filing 24

ORDER granting 21 Motion for Attorney Fees by Judge John L. Kane on 06/12/15.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge John L. Kane
Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-03372-JLK

ANTHONY CARRILLO,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
Kane, J
Upon consideration of the Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 21) and the Defendant’s Response
(Doc. 23) for Attorney Fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. §
2412 et seq., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION (Doc. 21) IS
GRANTED:
1.

Defendant will pay Plaintiff a total of $3,629.64 in EAJA fees. This amount is

payable to Plaintiff, not directly to his counsel. Payment will be sent to the office of Plaintiff’s
attorney: Nicholas D. Purifoy, Esq.; Disability Professionals, 214 W. 18th Street, Suite 100,
Kansas City, MO 64108.
2.

If, after receiving the Court’s EAJA fee order, the Commissioner determines that

Plaintiff has assigned his right to EAJA fees to his attorney and that Plaintiff does not owe a debt
that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, then the Commissioner will agree to

1

waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act (31 U.S.C. § 3727(b)), 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.
3.

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.
4.

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.
5.

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 12th day of June, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
John L. Kane
Senior United States District Judge

2