Hickam v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
21
ORDER: Granting Plaintiff's Amended Application for Fees Pursuant to EAJA (ECF No. 20 ). Signed on 1/27/2025 by Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman. (gw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
JASON LEE HICKAM,
Case No. 6:24-cv-00171-SB
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
______________________________________
Upon consideration of the parties’ Amended Stipulation for Attorney Fees Under the Equal
Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. 2412(d),
It is hereby ORDERED that the Amended Stipulation is granted. Defendant shall pay
attorney’s fees to Plaintiff pursuant to the EAJA in the amount of Seven Thousand Dollars and
00/100 ($7,000.00) and costs in the amount of Four Hundred Five Dollars and 00/100 ($405.00),
to be paid separately from the Judgment Fund, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct 2521, 2528-29 (2010), EAJA fees awarded by this
Court belong to Plaintiff and are subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program (31 U.S.C.
§ 3716(c)(3)(B) (2006)). If after receiving the Court’s EAJA fee order, the Commissioner
determines upon effectuation of the Court’s EAJA fee order that Plaintiff does not owe a debt that
is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, the fees will be made payable to Plaintiff’s
1
attorney. However, if there is a debt owed that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset
Program, any remaining EAJA fees after offset will be paid by a check payable to Plaintiff but
delivered to Plaintiff’s attorney.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 27th day of January, 2025.
____________________________
HON. STACIE F. BECKERMAN
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Submitted By:
KARL E. OSTERHOUT
Osterhout Berger Daley, LLC
521 Cedar Way, Suite 200
Oakmont, PA 15139
412-794-8003
kosterhout@obd.law
Attorney for Plaintiff
Pro Hac Vice Counsel
2
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?