Kirby v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 35

ORDER denying 30 Motion for Attorney Fees: The court concludes that the Commissioner has met her burden of showing that her position was substantially justified. Therefore, the Court DENIES Kirby's motion for attorney's fees. Signed by the Honorable David C Norton on 11/6/2017.(gnan )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION _,a ANGELA:KIRBY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting ) Commissioner ofthe Social Security ) Administration, 1 ) ) Defendant. ) ------�--------) - ,_.., ct> 0 < No. 4: 13-cv-3138-DCN ORDER - (1'\ -0 :JC C: ti> C, 0 r- !""I ::1:1::c, :,::r,, ("') ("')!"I'\ . �< :;:oft'l .-o •• _, "F . Cl> C, This matter is before the court on a motion for·attorney's fees filed by claimant Angela Kirby ("Kirby") pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(l)(A). Kirby requests $5,788.29 in attorney's fees on the ground that she is a under the EAJA. ECF No. 30 at 2. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, (the "Commissioner") argues that Kirby is not entitled to such fees and costs because the Commissioner's position in this �" litigation was substantially justified. The court finds that the Commissioner's position was subst<'.'lltially justified and denies Kirby's motion for attorney's fees. I. BACKGROUND Kirby filed arfapplication for disability insurance benefits ("DIB") and suppleme3:1tal security income ("SSI") on February 14, 2006, alleging disability beginning on September 1, 2004. The Social Security Administration denied Kirby's claim initially and on r�consideration. Kirby requested a hearing before an administrative law judge On Janu�ry 23, 2017, Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of Social Security; therefore, she is substituted as the named defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). 1 1

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?