Collins v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 28

ORDER - Plaintiff's application for attorney's fees (Dkt. 26 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $2695.85 for attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412, payable to Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney. EAJA fees are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program, as discussed in Ratliff, 560 U.S. at 593-94. Signed on 9/10/2014 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MATTHEW COLLINS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:13-cv-01268-SI
ORDER

v.
COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
On August 15, 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. 24.
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. 26.
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 $2695.85. Defendant does not
challenge the applicability of the EAJA statute and does not object to Plaintiff’s request for
attorney’s fees. Dkt. 26. 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. 26) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is
awarded $2695.85 for attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412, payable to Plaintiff and mailed to
Plaintiff’s attorney. EAJA fees are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset
Program, as discussed in Ratliff, 560 U.S. at 593-94.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th day of September, 2014.

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

PAGE 2 – ORDER