Simpson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 20

ORDER - Granting Plaintiff's Application for Fees Pursuant to EAJA 18 . Plaintiff is awarded $4,484.57 for attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412. EAJA fees are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset P rogram, as discussed in Ratliff, 560 U.S. at 593-94. Because Plaintiff has filed with the court an assignment of EAJA fees to counsel (Dkt. 18 -1), Defendant shall cause the payment of fees, after any applicable offsets, to be made directly to Plaintiff's counsel. Signed on 1/23/2015 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DALE SIMPSON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:13-cv-00584-SI
ORDER

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
On November 6, 2014, the Court reversed the Commissioner’s determination that
Plaintiff was not disabled and remanded the matter back to the agency for further proceedings.
Dkt. 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. Dkt. 18.
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

PAGE 1 – ORDER

attorney’s fees is within the discretion of the court. Id.; Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1083
(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 $4,484.57.1 Defendant does
not object to this request. Dkt. 19. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and agrees with the
parties that the EAJA petition is proper and the amount requested is reasonable.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees (Dkt. 18) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is
awarded $4,484.57 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 counsel (Dkt. 18-1),
Defendant shall cause the payment of fees, after any applicable offsets, to be made directly to
Plaintiff’s counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 23rd day of January, 2015.

/s/ Michael H. Simon
Michael H. Simon
United States District Judge
1

Plaintiff’s motion seeks fees in the amount of $4,484.57. There appears to be a
scrivener’s error in the proposed order submitted to the Court by Plaintiff, which states fees are
granted in the amount of $5,259.12. This scrivener’s error is moot, however, because the Court
has drafted its own Order resolving the pending motion.

PAGE 2 – ORDER