Harp v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
21
ORDER - The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's unopposed application for attorney's fees, ECF 17 . Plaintiff is awarded $7,292.86 for attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412. EAJA fees are subject to any offsets allowed under t he Treasury Offset Program, as discussed in Ratliff, 560 U.S. at 593-94. Because Plaintiff has filed with the court an assignment of EAJA fees to his counsel, Defendant shall cause the payment of fees, after any applicable offsets, to be made directly to Plaintiff's counsel, Chad Hatfield, 8131 W Klamath Ct, Ste D, Kennewick, WA 99336. Signed on 10/25/2024 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JOHN HARP,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:23-cv-23-SI
ORDER
v.
MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.
On July 25, 2024, the Court reversed the Commissioner’s determination that Plaintiff was
not disabled and remanded the matter back to the agency for further proceedings. ECF 15, 16.
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to
Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. ECF 17.
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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Although the EAJA creates a
presumption that fees will be awarded to a prevailing party, Congress did not intend fee shifting
to be mandatory. Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 567 (9th Cir. 1995). The decision to deny EAJA
attorney’s fees is within the discretion of the court. Id.; Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1083
PAGE 1 – ORDER
(9th Cir. 2002). A social security claimant is the “prevailing party” following a sentence-four
remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) either for further administrative proceedings or for the
payment of benefits. Flores, 49 F.3d at 567-68 (citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300
(1993)). Fee awards under the EAJA are paid to the litigant, and not the litigant’s attorney,
unless the litigant has assigned his or her rights to counsel to receive the fee award. Astrue v.
Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 596-98 (2010).
Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $7,292.86. Defendant does
not oppose this request. ECF 20. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and agrees with the
parties that the EAJA petition is proper and the amount requested is reasonable.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed application for attorney’s fees, ECF 17.
Plaintiff is awarded $7,292.86 for attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412. EAJA fees are subject
to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program, as discussed in Ratliff, 560 U.S.
at 593-94. Because Plaintiff has filed with the court an assignment of EAJA fees to his counsel,
Defendant shall cause the payment of fees, after any applicable offsets, to be made directly to
Plaintiff’s counsel, Chad Hatfield, 8131 W Klamath Ct, Ste D, Kennewick, WA 99336.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 25th day of October, 2024.
/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
PAGE 2 – ORDER
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?