Bottom v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Filing 31

ORDER: Granting Application for Fees Pursuant to EAJA 28 . Signed on 01/06/2015 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MEDFORD DIVISION

GINA A. BOTTOM,

Civ. No. 6:13-cv-01106-CL
Plaintiff,

ORDER
v.

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

CLARKE, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the stipulation of the parties (#28) that PlaintiiT
Gina A. Bottom ("Plaintiff") be awarded $5,146.35 in attorney's fees and $400 in costs under the
Equal Access Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412.

BACKGROUND
On July 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (#1) to obtain judicial review of the final
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") denying

Page I -ORDER

her application for disability insurance benefits. On July 30, 2014, this Court reversed the
Commissioner's decision and remanded for further administrative proceedings (#26). On
December 19,2014, Plaintiffs attorney filed a stipulated application (#28) for EAJA fees.

LEGAL STANDARD
A prevailing party in an action against the United States is entitled to an award of
attorney's fees and costs under the EAJA unless the government demonstrates that its position in
the litigation was "substantially justified" or that "special circumstances make an award unjust."
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1 )(A). An EAJA fee award must be reasonable. Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d
1140, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001 ). In determining whether a fee is reasonable, the Court considers the
hours expended, the reasonableness of the hourly rate charged, and the results obtained. Hensley

v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983); Atkins v. Apfel, 154 f.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 1998)
(applying Hensley to cases involving the EAJA). If the requested fees are not shown to be
reasonable, then the Court may reduce the award. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433; Atkins, 154 F.3d
at 988.

DISCUSSION
It is undisputed that Plaintiff is a prevailing party. Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255,
1257 (9th Cir. 2001) ("An applicant for disability benefits becomes a prevailing party for the
purposes of the EAJA if the denial of her benefits is reversed and remanded regardless of
whether disability benefits ultimately are awarded."). By stipulating to the attorney's fees award,
the Commissioner concedes its position in denying Plaintiff's application was not "substantially
justified" and that no special circumstances render the requested award unjust. Having reviewed
the stipulated motion, the Court finds Plaintiff's petition is proper and the amount requested is

Page 2- ORDER

reasonable. Therefore, Plaintiffs application (#28) for EAJA fees is GRANTED. Plaintiff is
awarded $5,146.35 in attorney's fees and $400.00 in costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
The amount of this award shall be paid to Plaintiffs attorney upon verification that
Plaintiff has no debt qualifying for offset against the award pursuant to the Treasury Offset
Program. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 (20 I 0). Because Plaintiff has filed with the
Court an assignment of EAJA fees to her attorney, Tassinari Dec!. Ex. A, at I, Defendant shall
make the payment directly to Plaintiff's counsel, whose mailing address follows:
Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P.C.
4 74 Willamette Street
Eugene, Oregon 97 401

MARK D. CLARKE
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3- ORDER