ADAMS v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER

Filing 19

ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR EAJA AWARD granting 17 Motion for Attorney Fees By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (dfr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
RANDY ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
COMMISSIONER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No.: 2:12-cv-00385-NT

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EAJA AWARD
Following an Order of Remand and Judgment pursuant to sentence four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g), Plaintiff Randy Adams moved for an award of attorney fees
pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (ECF No. 17.)
Adams requests an award of $2,031.80 and further requests that the award be paid
directly to counsel. (EAJA Motion at 2; Ex. A Itemization, ECF No. 17-1.) In
support of this request, Adams filed an exhibit demonstrating that he assigned to
his attorneys his right to an attorney fee award under the EAJA. (Ex. C, EAJA
Assignment, ECF No. 17-4.) The Commissioner responds that she “has no
substantive objection” but objects to the request that the award issue directly to
counsel. (Response at 1, ECF No. 18.) In a proposed order attached to her response,
the Commissioner requests that the order state that she “may honor” the
assignment of EAJA fees to counsel, if she determines that the EAJA award is not

subject to offset to satisfy a pre-existing debt Adams may owe the United States.
(Proposed Order, ECF No. 18-1.)
In Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010), the Supreme Court held that an
EAJA award “is payable to the litigant and is therefore subject to a Government
offset to satisfy a pre-existing debt that the litigant owes the United States.” Id. at
2524. The determination of whether a pre-existing debt is owed is “covered by the
Treasury Offset Program (TOP) operated by the Treasury Department’s Financial
Management Service (FMS).” Id. (discussing the statutory offset provisions found
in the Debt Collections Improvement Act of 1996, as amended in 2005 to reach fee
awards, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3701, 3711, 3716, and related Treasury regulations, 31 C.F.R.
§ 285.5). Although the Court held that the language of the EAJA calls for an award
to be paid to the litigant rather than the attorney, the Court also acknowledged that
there is nothing improper about the Commissioner paying an award directly to the
attorney where an offset is not called for and the litigant has assigned the right to
payment to the attorney. Id. at 2529. Here, Adams has supported his request with
evidence that he in fact assigned “any and all rights to any attorney fees payable
under the Equal Access [to] Justice Act” to his attorneys. Under these
circumstances, the award should be paid to the attorney, subject to any offset, in
order to avoid creating “a potential collection problem for the lawyer.” MathewsSheets v. Astrue, 653 F.3d 560, 565-66 (7th Cir. 2011).
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for EAJA Award is GRANTED
in the amount of $2,031.80. If the Commissioner has not determined that Adams

2

has outstanding debts to the federal government that offset this award, then the
Commissioner shall issue the award directly to counsel.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12th day of September, 2013.
/s/Nancy Torresen
U.S. District Judge

3