Henning v. Astrue
Filing
20
ORDER granting 18 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 12/23/2013. (mb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHELSEA HENNING,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-13-28-D
ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES
This matter comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s
Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act [Doc. No. 18]. Plaintiff seeks an award of fees pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $4,758.90 for the legal services provided by her attorney
(27.35 hours) in this case. Plaintiff is the prevailing party by virtue of the Judgment and Order of
Remand entered December 13, 2013. The Acting Commissioner has responded to the Motion by
stating she does not oppose the request, provided the award is made to Plaintiff consistent with
Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 2529 (2010), and Manning v. Astrue, 510 F.3d 1246, 1255 (10th
Cir. 2007).
Upon consideration of the law, the record, and the facts shown by the Motion, the Court
finds: (1) the Commissioner’s position in this case was not substantially justified; (2) Plaintiff is
entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d);
and (3) the amount of fees requested is reasonable.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. The Court orders
an award of attorney’s fees to Plaintiff Chelsea Henning pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act
in the amount of $4,785.90. Should an additional fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) subsequently
be authorized, Plaintiff’s attorney shall refund the smaller amount to Plaintiff as required by Weakley
v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 575, 580 (10th Cir. 1986).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of December, 2013.
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?