Calkin v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Filing 30

ORDER - Plaintiff's application for attorney's fees (Dkt. 28 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $7,552.87 for attorney's fees and expenses under 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and $0.00 for costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. EAJA fees, expenses, and costs 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 her counsel, Defendant shall cause the payment of fees, after any applicable offsets, to be made directly to Plaintiff's counsel. Signed 6/17/2014 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JEFFREY C. CALKIN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 6:12-cv-01706-SI
ORDER

v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
On April 3, 2014, the Court reversed the Commissioner’s determination that Plaintiff
was not disabled and was not entitled to supplemental security income, and remanded the matter
back to the agency for further proceedings. Dkt. 26. 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. 28.
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 $7,552.87 and costs and
expenses in the amount of $0.00. Defendant does not challenge the applicability of the EAJA
statute and does not object to Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees. Dkt. 28. 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. 28) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is
awarded $7,552.87 for attorney’s fees and expenses under 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and $0.00 for costs
under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. EAJA fees, expenses, and costs 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 her counsel, 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 17th day of June, 2014.

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

PAGE 2 – ORDER