Dubose v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 28

ORDER granting 25 Motion for Attorney Fees Under EAJA: The court grants the Motion for Attorney's Fees (ECF No. 25 ) as modified by the stipulation (ECF No. 26 ) and orders that the Plaintiff be awarded the $4,100. Signed by Honorable Timothy M. Cain on 10/25/2018.(bshr, )

IN THE DISTRICT COUR TOF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Susie Mae Dubose,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
C/A No. 0:17-cv-01498-TMC
)
v.
)
ORDER
)
Nancy A Berryhill, Acting Commissioner )
Of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
On October 10, 2018, Plaintiff Susie Mae Dubose filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees
pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), on the basis that she
was the prevailing party and that the position taken by the Commissioner in this action was not
substantially justified. (ECF No. 25). On October 18, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation for
an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA. (ECF No. 26).
Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney’s fees to a prevailing party1 in certain civil
actions against the United States, unless it finds that the government’s position was substantially
justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The
district courts have discretion to determine a reasonable fee award and whether that award should
be made in excess of the statutory cap. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988); May v.
Sullivan, 936 F.2d 176, 177 (4th Cir. 1991). The district courts also have broad discretion to set
the attorney fee amount. In determining the fee award, “[e]xorbitant, unfounded, or procedurally
defective fee applications . . . are matters that the district court can recognize and discount.”
Hyatt v. North Carolina Dep’t of Human Res., 315 F.3d 239, 254 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing Comm’r

1

A party who wins a remand pursuant to sentence four of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §
405(g), is a prevailing party for EAJA purposes. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300–302
(1993). The remand in this case was made pursuant to sentence four.
1

v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163 (1990)). Additionally, the court should not only consider the “position
taken by the United States in the civil action,” but also the “action or failure to act by the agency
upon which the civil action is based.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(D), as amended by P.L. 99-80, §
2(c)(2)(B).
Initially, the Plaintiff asked for the payment of attorney’s fees in the amount of
$4,163.17. (ECF No. 25). However, on October 18, 2018, the parties entered into a stipulation
allowing for the payment of $4,100 in attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 26). Despite the stipulation, the
court is obligated under the EAJA to determine if the fee is proper. See Design & Prod., Inc. v.
United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 145, 152 (1990) (holding that under the EAJA, “it is the court’s
responsibility to independently assess the appropriateness and measure of attorney’s fees to be
awarded in a particular case, whether or not an amount is offered as representing the agreement
of the parties in the form of a proposed stipulation.”). Applying the above standard to the facts of
this case, the court concludes that the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified.
Furthermore, after a thorough review of the record, the court finds that the stipulated fee request
is appropriate. Accordingly, the court grants the Motion for Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 25) as
modified by the stipulation (ECF No. 26) and orders that the Plaintiff be awarded the $4,100.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
October 25, 2018
Anderson, South Carolina

2

The court notes that the fees must be paid to Plaintiff. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010)
(holding that the plain text of the EAJA requires that attorney’s fees be awarded to the litigant,
thus subjecting the EAJA fees to offset of any pre-existing federal debts); see also Stephens v.
Astrue, 565 F.3d 131, 139 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding the same).
2