McCollum v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Filing
33
ORDER: The court approves the stipulation for attorney's fees and costs, ECF No. 29 , and orders that the Plaintiff be awarded the $5,200.00 in attorney's fees and $20.31 for expenses, for a total award of $5,220.31. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 4/4/2019. (gnan )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
CAROL McCOLLUM,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-vs)
)
)
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-2095-TER
ORDER
On March 13, 2019, Plaintiff Carol A. McCollum 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 that the position taken by the Commissioner, in this action was not substantially
justified. (ECF No. 28). On March 27, 2019, the Commissioner responded stating that the parties
had stipulated to withdrawal of the motion and that Plaintiff should be awarded attorney’s fees in
the amount of $5,200.00 and costs in the amount of $20.31 pursuant to the EAJA. (ECF No. 29).
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
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.
... are matters that the district court can recognize and discount.” Hyatt v. North 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).
As stated above, the parties have stipulated to an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of
$5,200.00 and costs in the amount of $20.31. Despite the 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 that the stipulated fee request is appropriate. Accordingly, the court approves
the stipulation for attorney’s fees and costs (ECF No. 29) and orders that the Plaintiff be awarded
the $5,200.00 in attorney’s fees and $20.31 for expenses, for a total award of $5,220.31.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
April 4, 2019
Florence, 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?