White v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 29

ORDER granting 26 Motion for Attorney Fees: The court orders the defendant to pay the sum of $2,566.88 in attorney's fees and $22.46 in expenses pursuant to EAJA. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 5/9/2017.(gnan ) (Modified on 5/9/2017 to replace document with corrected document per Chambers). (gnan ).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION Bridgett Yvonne White, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner ) of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) C/A No.: 4:16-cv-02928-RBH ORDER On May 9, 2017, 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. In the motion, Plaintiff requested attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,566.88 and expenses in the amount of $22.46. On May 9, 2017, the Commissioner filed a response in support of Plaintiff’s motion indicating no objection to an award of $2,566.88 in attorney’s fees and $22.46 in expenses. The Commissioner noted, however, that the 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. 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 $2,566.88 in attorney’s fees and $22.46 in expenses 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, with a copy to the claimant. IT IS SO ORDERED. May 9, 2017 Florence, South Carolina s/ R. Bryan Harwell R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge

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?