Phillips v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 21

ORDER granting 18 Motion for Attorney Fees, and directing the Commissioner to pay Plaintiff $6,500. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 12/13/2013.(cwil, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Elizabeth Phillips, on behalf of Mark Phillips, deceased, vs. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No.: 1:12-533-SVH ORDER This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees [Entry #18]. On August 14, 2013, the court reversed the Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s claim for social security disability benefits and remanded the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Plaintiff then properly filed and documented a request for fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (“the EAJA”), totaling $7,175.97. The Commissioner filed a response indicating the parties’ consent to a reduced award of $6,500. [Entry #20]. Accordingly, the court grants the motion and directs the Commissioner to pay Plaintiff $6,500. Such payment shall constitute a complete release from and bar to any and all further claims that Plaintiff may have under the EAJA to fees, costs, and expenses incurred in connection with disputing the Commissioner’s decision. This award is without prejudice to the rights of Plaintiff’s counsel to seek attorney fees under section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the offset provisions of the EAJA. Under 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)). Therefore, the court orders the EAJA fees to be paid to Plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. December 13, 2013 Columbia, South Carolina Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge 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?