Vovchik v. Social Security Administration
Filing
25
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; granting 23 Motion for Attorney Fees (jcm, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DEBORAH D. VOVOCHIK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 10-CV-73-FHM
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner, Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, [Dkt.
23], is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for decision.
Plaintiff seeks an award of $7,464.60 for attorney fees under the Equal Access to
Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) and (d). The Commissioner agrees that Plaintiff
is entitled to an award of fees, but objects to the amount as excessive. The Commissioner
argues that the award should be reduced by $522, a reduction of 3 hours, which would
bring the total award to $6,942.60. [Dkt. 24]. Plaintiff did not file a reply brief to oppose
the proposed reduction.
The court finds that the amount of the fee request, as amended by the
Commissioner, is reasonable. Pursuant to the Commissioner’s usual practice, the check
should be made payable to Plaintiff and mailed to counsel’s address. If Plaintiff’s attorney
receives the fees awarded herein and attorney fees are also awarded and received by
counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) of the Social Security Act, counsel shall refund the
smaller award to Plaintiff pursuant to Weakley v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 575, 580 (10th Cir.
1986).
Based on the finding that the amended amount is reasonable and the absence of
any objection to the Commissioner’s proposed reduction in the amount of the fee award,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, [Dkt. 23] is
GRANTED in the amount of $6,942.60.
SO ORDERED this 21st day of June, 2011.
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?