White v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Filing
29
ORDER granting 26 Motion for Attorney Fees: The court concludes that the Commissioner's position was not substantially justified. Furthermore, after a thorough review of the record, the court finds that the requested f ee is appropriate. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Motion for Attorney's Fees (ECF No. 26 ) as and orders that the Plaintiff be awarded the $3,140.63 in attorney's fees and $20.01 in expenses, for a total award of $3,160.64. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 5/15/2018.(gnan, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
JOHN WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner
Of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No. 4:16-CV-03627-TMC
ORDER
On May 8, 2018, Plaintiff John White filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to the
Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, on the bases that he was the prevailing
party and that the Commissioner’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. (ECF No.
26). On May 14, 2018, Defendant responded stating that she does not object to Plaintiff’s motion.
(ECF No. 27).
Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney’s fees to a prevailing party 1 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
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.
1
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)). 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 Plaintiff has asked for the payment of attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,140.63, and
expenses in the amount of $20.01. (ECF No. 26). Defendant responded, stating that she did not
object to the requested amount of attorney’s fees or expenses. (ECF No. 27). Despite there being
no objections, 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 that the requested fee
is appropriate. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Motion for Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 26) as
and orders that the Plaintiff be awarded the $3,140.63 in attorney’s fees and $20.01 in expenses,
for a total award of $3,160.64. 2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
May 15, 2018
Anderson, South Carolina
2
The court notes that the fees must be paid to Plaintiff. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010) (holding that the
plain text of the EAJA requires that attorney’s fees be awarded to the litigant, thus subjecting the EAJA fees to
offset of any pre-existing federal debts); see also Stephens v. Astrue, 565 F.3d 131, 139 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding the
same).
2
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?