Meade v. Colvin

Filing 23

ORDER re: 22 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 Defendant will pay Plaintiff a total of $5,000.00 in EAJA fees, by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 3/21/2016. (evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00617-WYD
ROBERT A. MEADE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

ORDER

Daniel, J.
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

1
The Commissioner recognizes that Plaintiff has assigned his right to EAJA fees to his 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.

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.

Dated: March 21, 2016
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
WILEY Y. DANIEL,
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE