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 ).
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?