Alberto Jose Corpus v. Commissioner of Social Security

Corpus · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · July 22, 2025 · No. 1:25-cv-00067-CDB

Summary

The court granted the parties’ stipulated request for $8,000 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after remanding the Social Security case for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The fees are payable to the plaintiff, subject to Treasury Offset Program requirements, with direct payment to plaintiff’s counsel if no federal debt prevents it.

Holdings

  1. A party who prevails through a sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) qualifies as a prevailing party for purposes of an EAJA fee award.
  2. The court shall award EAJA attorney fees to a prevailing party where the government has not shown that its position was substantially justified and no special circumstances make the award unjust.
  3. The stipulated request for $8,000 in EAJA fees was reasonable and commensurate with the work required to review the administrative record and prepare the summary-judgment motion.
  4. The fees are payable to plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that plaintiff owes no federal debt, the government must cause payment of the fees, expenses, and costs to be made directly to plaintiff's counsel under the stipulation.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff qualified as a prevailing party after obtaining a sentence-four remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
  2. Whether plaintiff was entitled to attorney fees under the EAJA because the government's position was not substantially justified and no special circumstances made an award unjust.
  3. Whether the stipulated $8,000 fee request was reasonable and should be paid to plaintiff subject to Treasury Offset Program provisions, with direct payment to counsel if no federal debt offset applied.

Disposition

approved

Cases Cited (5)

  • Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993)(followed)
  • Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007)(followed)
  • Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-01081-SKO, 2018 WL 509817, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)(followed)
  • Knyazhina v. Colvin, No. 2:12-cv-2726 DAD, 2014 WL 5324302, at 1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014)(followed)
  • Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…