Renfro v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 26

ORDER: Granting Application for Fees Pursuant to EAJA 22 . Signed on 12/16/2020 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ck)

Case 1:17-cv-01918-AA

Document 26

Filed 12/16/20

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JESSIE E. R.,1

Case No. 1:17-cv-01918-AA
ORDER

Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
AIKEN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Jessie R. filed a lawsuit challenging the final decision of the
Commissioner of Social Security, doc. 1, and the Court reversed the decision of the
Commissioner and remanded the action for further proceedings, doc. 20. Plaintiff
now moves for an award of fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”),
which the Commissioner opposes. Docs. 23, 24.
The EAJA authorizes the payment of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in an
action against the United States, unless the government shows that its position in
the underlying litigation “was substantially justified” at each stage of the
proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Williams v. Bowen, 966 F.2d 1259, 1261 (9th
Cir. 1991). A social security claimant is the “prevailing party” following a sentence-

1

In the interest of privacy, this opinion uses only the first name and the initial of the last
name of the non-governmental party in this case. Where applicable, this opinion uses the same
designation for a non-governmental party's immediate family member.

Page 1 – OPINION AND ORDER

Case 1:17-cv-01918-AA

Document 26

Filed 12/16/20

Page 2 of 2

four remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) either for further administrative
proceedings or for the calculation of benefits. Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 567–68
(9th Cir. 1995) (citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300 (1993)).

If the

government’s position is not substantially justified, the court has discretion to
determine whether the requested fees are reasonable. Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 986,
989 (9th Cir. 1998).
Having reviewed plaintiff’s motion, the parties’ briefing, and the record in this
case, the Court finds that the Commissioner did not meet their burden to show
substantial justification; that the requirements for an award of attorney’s fees under
the EAJA have been met; and that the fees requested are reasonable. Plaintiff’s
Application for Fees Pursuant to EAJA (doc. 22) is GRANTED.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,062.36 are
awarded to plaintiff pursuant to the EAJA. Payment of this award shall be made via
check payable to plaintiff and mailed to plaintiff’s attorneys at HARDER, WELLS,
BARON & MANNING, P.C., 474 Willamette Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401.
Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, the award shall be made payable to plaintiff’s attorneys,
HARDER, WELLS, BARON & MANNING, P.C. if the Commissioner confirms that
plaintiff owes no debt to the government through the Federal Treasury Offset
program.
16th
Dated this _____ day of December 2020.
/s/Ann Aiken
__________________________
Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

Page 2 – OPINION AND ORDER