Hawkins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 34

ORDER granting 32 Motion for Attorney Fees and directing the Commissioner to pay directly to the plaintiff $3.999.50 in attorneys fees, $7.00 in costs, and $16.00 in expenses. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 2/19/2015.(cwil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Jaki Louise Hawkins,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:13-2966-BHH

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (ECF
No. 32) for the successful representation of the plaintiff Jaki Louise Hawkins (“the
plaintiff”) by Attorney Danny Mayes, in the underlying Social Security benefits action.
The Court may make such an award pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act
(“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. §2412(d).
In her Motion for EAJA Fees, the plaintiff requests an award of $3,999.50 in
attorney’s fees, $7.00 in costs, and $16.00 in expenses because she was the prevailing
party and that the position taken by the defendant was not substantially justified. (ECF
No. 32.) The defendant filed a response stating that the Commissioner does not object
to the plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 33.)
The EAJA provides attorney’s fees in actions where the government’s position is
not substantially justified. The substantial justification test is one of reasonableness in
law and fact.

See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101

L.Ed2d 490 (1988).

The district court has broad discretion to set the attorney fee

amount. “[A] district court will always retain substantial discretion in fixing the amount of
an EAJA award. Exorbitant, unfounded, or procedurally defective fee applications . . .
are matters that the district court can recognize.” Hyatt v. North Carolina Dep’t of

Human Res, 315 F.3d 239, 254 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing Comm’r v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154,
163 (1990)). Moreover, 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).
Accordingly, the court grants the motion, and directs the Commissioner to pay
directly to the plaintiff $3.999.50 in attorney’s fees,1 $7.00 in costs, and $16.00 in
expenses. Such payment shall constitute a complete release from and bar to any and
all further claims that the 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 the plaintiff’s counsel to seek attorney fees
under section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, 4 2 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the
offset provisions of the EAJA.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
February 19, 2015
Greenville, South Carolina.

1

In Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 598(2010), the United States Supreme Court held that
the EAJA requires attorneys’ fees to be awarded directly to the litigant. Id. (holding that the plain
text of the EAJA requires that attorneys’ fees be awarded to the litigant, thus subjecting EAJA fees
to offset of any pre-existing federal debts); see also Stephens v. Astrue, 565 F.3d 131, 139 (4th Cir.
2009) (same).

2