Belk v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Filing
33
ORDER granting 30 Motion for Attorney Fees under EAJA. The court orders that Plaintiff be awarded $3,700.00 in attorney fees, $7.00 in costs, and $23.00 in expenses. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 4/18/2016.(gnan )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Teresa L. Belk,
Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No. 4:14-4491-TMC
ORDER
Plaintiff Teresa L. Belk filed a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to
Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, on the basis that she was the prevailing party and the
position taken by the Commissioner in this action was not substantially justified. (ECF No. 30). On
April 7, 2016, the parties filed a joint stipulation for an award of $3,700.00 in attorney’s fees
pursuant to the EAJA, plus $7.00 in costs and $23.00 in expenses. (ECF No. 31).
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.,
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.
315 F.3d 239, 254 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing Comm’r 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).
The parties have entered into a joint stipulation for the payment of attorneys’ fees in the
amount of $3,700.00, plus $7.00 in costs and $23.00 in expenses. (ECF No. 31 at 1). Despite this
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 the stipulated fee request is
appropriate. Accordingly, the court orders that Plaintiff be awarded $3,700.00 in attorney fees,
$7.00 in costs,2 and $23.00 in expenses.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
Anderson, South Carolina.
April 18, 2016
2
Costs are paid from the Judgment Fund, rather than from Agency Funds. See 28 U.S.C. §
2412(c)(1), 2414.
3
The court notes that the fees must be paid to Plaintiff. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010)
(June 14, 2010) (holding that the plain text of the EAJA requires that attorney’s 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).
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?