Lightle v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 35

ORDER granting 27 Motion for Attorney Fees, awarding $4,451.48 in fees. Signed by Honorable Donald C. Coggins, Jr. on 04/16/2019.(bshr, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Vickie Lightle,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant. )
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 0:17-cv-01009-DCC

ORDER

On October 1, 2018, John B. Duggan, counsel for Plaintiff, filed a motion for
attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). ECF No. 27. After
reviewing the Motion, the Court determined that the requested attorney’s fees were based
on an outdated hourly rate and directed Duggan to file supplemental briefing using the
correct hourly rate and Consumer Price Index values. ECF No. 30. On December 21,
2018, Duggan filed a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of his Motion for Attorney’s
Fees. ECF No. 31. In the Supplemental Memorandum, Duggan requests reimbursement
for representation provided in the above-referenced case in the amount of $4,451.48
(representing 22 hours of work at a rate of $202.34 per hour). On January 2, 2019,
Defendant filed a Response, in which she noted no opposition to Plaintiff’s request. ECF
No. 33.
Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney's fees to a prevailing party in certain
civil actions against the United States unless the court finds that the government's position
was substantially justified or special circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2412(d)(1)(A). To determine whether the Commissioner was “substantially justified” in

terminating social security benefits and thus whether an award of attorney's fees under the
EAJA is warranted, a court asks whether there was arguably substantial evidence to
support the Commissioner's position. Anderson v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 1011 (4th Cir. 1984).
However, an EAJA attorney's fees award is payable to the litigant and, therefore, is subject
to an offset to satisfy the litigant's pre-existing debt to the Government. Astrue v. Ratliff,
560 U.S. 586, 594 (2010).
After careful consideration of the parties' filings and the applicable legal authority,
the Court concludes that the Commissioner's position was not substantially justified and
that the requested fees should be awarded. As noted, the Commissioner does not object
to Plaintiff's motion for an award of fees.
Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees under the EAJA is granted. The
Commissioner is ordered to award Plaintiff $4,451.48 in attorney’s fees. EAJA fees
awarded by this Court belong to the Plaintiff and are subject to offset under the Treasury
Offset Program (31 U.S.C. § 3716(c)(3)(B) (2006)). In the event Plaintiff has no present
debt subject to offset and Plaintiff has executed a proper assignment to Plaintiff’s counsel,
Defendant is directed to make the payment due to Plaintiff’s counsel. If Plaintiff has no
debt subject to offset and no proper assignment has been made by Plaintiff to counsel,
Defendant is directed to make the check due pursuant to this Order payable to Plaintiff and
delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 16, 2019
Spartanburg, South Carolina

s/Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge