Coleman v. Colvin
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs application for attorneys fees is GRANTED in the amount of $5,297.94, payable directly to Plaintiff. (ECF. No. 23 .) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 12/13/2017. (KCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SHEILA COLEMAN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NANCY BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
No. 4:16CV00830 AGF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fee, under
the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. ' 2412(d). Plaintiff is the prevailing party in
this action challenging the decision of Defendant that Plaintiff is not disabled, as defined
by the Social Security Act, and was thus not entitled to disability insurance benefits or
Supplemental Security Income. Plaintiff seeks $5,297.94 in fees, to be paid to Plaintiff’s
counsel, pursuant to an assignment of fees executed by Plaintiff, in the event the award is
not used to satisfy an outstanding debt. Plaintiff has submitted documentation supporting
the requested amount of fees. Defendant responds that she does not object to the award of
fees in the amount sought, but notes that Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), mandates
that the fees are to be paid directly to Plaintiff.
The Court’s review of the record indicates that the amount of fees sought is
reasonable and properly supported. As Defendant asserts, Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586
(2010), requires that the fees be paid directly to Plaintiff, even in light of the assignment
signed by Plaintiff. The Court is not in a position to provide otherwise.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees is
GRANTED in the amount of $5,297.94, payable directly to Plaintiff. (ECF. No. 23.)
_______________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 13th day of December, 2017
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?