ADKINS v. ASTRUE
Filing
40
Entry Granting Petition for Attorney's Fees: GRANTED 35 Motion for Attorney Fees ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 9/27/2011. (DWH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
BRIAN K. ADKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:10-cv-0168-SEB-TAB
Entry Granting Petition for Attorney’s Fees
Plaintiff Adkins’ petition under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C.
§ 2412(d)(1)(A), for attorney fees [35] is granted. Adkins seeks an award of attorney fees
in the amount of $6,473.89, to which the Commissioner does not object.
The only objection asserted by the Commissioner is that the fees not be paid directly
to plaintiff’s counsel. Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). The Commissioner alleges
that the Agency will not be able to determine whether Adkins has any pre-existing federal
debts until after the court grants the award.
There is a valid assignment in this case. An order directing payment to Adkins’
attorney after the government determines whether Adkins has any pre-existing federal
debts accommodates the concerns discussed in Ratliff. See Smith v. Astrue, 1:09-cv-1165DML-JMS, 2011 WL 2064843 (S.D.Ind. May 25, 2011).
The Commissioner shall determine whether the United States is entitled to and will
exercise a right of offset (and if so, the amount of the offset) against the award because of
a pre-existing debt Adkins owes the government. The amount of the fee award remaining
after the offset (if any) shall be paid to Adkins’ attorney consistent with the assignment.
A separate Order consistent with the foregoing shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:
09/27/2011
_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
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?