McElveen v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
22
ORDER granting 19 Motion for Attorney Fees Under EAJA, awarding $6,115.56 in attorney's fees pursuant to EAJA. Signed by the Honorable R. Bryan Harwell on 03/10/2014.(bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
AIKEN DIVISION
Laura McElveen,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
C/A No.: 1:13-cv-1332-RBH
ORDER
On February 25, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal
Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2412, on the basis that the position taken by the defendant
in this action was not substantially justified. Defendant filed a response on March 6, 2014, in which
she does not object to the amount requested. The Commissioner further indicates, in reference to the
claimant’s signed assignment of EAJA fees to his attorney, that fees awarded should be paid to the
prevailing party and not the attorney and would be subject to the Treasury Offset Program if the
prevailing party owes a debt to the government. The Commissioner states, however, that she will
accept the assignment and pay the fees directly to Claimant’s counsel “if it is subsequently shown at
the time of the EAJA Order that the prevailing party owes no debt to the government that would be
subject to offset.” (ECF No. 20, p. 2)
Based on the foregoing and after considering the briefs and materials submitted by the parties,
the court orders the defendant to pay the sum of $6,115.56 in attorney’s fees pursuant to EAJA.
However, the payment shall be made payable to the claimant pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct.
2521 (2010) and mailed to her attorney .
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
March 10, 2014
Florence, South Carolina
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?