Byrd v. Social Security Administration

Filing 17

ORDER1 (1) APPROVING THE PARTIES JOINT STIPULATION FOR EAJA FEES (DOC. 16 ) UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2412; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR EAJA FEES (DOC. 14 ) AS MOOT; AND (3) GRANTING PLAINTIFF EAJA FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,700.00. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 9/30/15. (pb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
DENISE MICHELLE BYRD,

Case No.: 3:14-cv-242

Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
(Consent Case)

Defendant.

ORDER1 (1) APPROVING THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION
FOR EAJA FEES (DOC. 16) UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2412; (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EAJA FEES (DOC. 14) AS MOOT; AND (3) GRANTING PLAINTIFF
EAJA FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,700.00

This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion
for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (doc.
14), and the parties’ subsequently filed joint stipulation agreeing that Plaintiff be awarded EAJA
fees in the amount of $4,700.00. Doc. 16. The Court has carefully reviewed these documents
and they are now ripe for consideration.
EAJA provides for an award of attorney’s fees to a party who prevails in a civil action
against the United States “when the position taken by the Government is not substantially
justified and no special circumstances exist warranting a denial of fees.” Bryant v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec., 578 F.3d 443, 445 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A)). A party who
prevails and obtains a Sentence Four remand is a prevailing party for EAJA purposes. See

1

The parties unanimously consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. Doc. 4.

Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 301-02 (1993). EAJA fees are payable to the litigant. Astrue
v. Ratliff, 586 U.S. 586, 589 (2010).
The Court found the ALJ’s non-disability finding -- that Plaintiff was not disabled prior
to July 23, 2013 -- unsupported by substantial evidence, and remanded this case to the
Commissioner under the Fourth Sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings. Doc.
12. Accordingly, Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this case for EAJA purposes and, therefore,
is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under EAJA. See Shalala, 509 U.S. at 301-02. Having
considered the nature of the work counsel performed in this case, the Court finds the stipulated
fee reasonable. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an EAJA fee award in the stipulated amount
of $4,700.00.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Court: (1) APPROVES the parties’ joint
stipulation for an EAJA fee award (doc. 16); (2) DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for an EAJA fee
award (doc. 14) as MOOT; and (3) GRANTS Plaintiff EAJA fees in the amount of $4,700.00.
As no further matters remain pending for review, this case remains TERMINATED upon the
Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: September 30, 2015

s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge

2