Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of New York approved a stipulated award of attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act following remand of the plaintiff’s Social Security benefits case. The court awarded $7,590.00 in attorney’s fees and $402.00 in costs, subject to federal debt offset and the Anti-Assignment Act. The fees were payable to plaintiff’s counsel if the government permitted assignment.
Holdings
- A plaintiff who obtains a remand under the circumstances presented is a prevailing party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act.
- A stipulation between the parties does not relieve the court of its obligation to determine whether an EAJA fee amount is reasonable.
- The fee award was appropriate because the government did not establish that its position was substantially justified and the court found no special circumstances making an award unjust.
- The stipulated award of $7,590.00 in attorney's fees, based on 31.0 hours and an effective hourly rate of $244.84, was reasonable and could be approved.
- The EAJA award could be paid to plaintiff's counsel pursuant to plaintiff's assignment if the government waived application of the Anti-Assignment Act and plaintiff owed no federal debt subject to Treasury offset; otherwise, the award was payable to plaintiff but delivered to counsel.
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff was a prevailing party entitled to seek attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after obtaining a remand.
- Whether the government established that its position was substantially justified or that special circumstances made an EAJA award unjust.
- Whether the stipulated attorney's fee amount and documented hours were reasonable.
- Whether the fee award could be paid to plaintiff's counsel pursuant to plaintiff's assignment, subject to the Anti-Assignment Act and Treasury offset.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (7)
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993)(followed)
- Pribek v. Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services, 717 F. Supp. 73, 75 (W.D.N.Y. 1989)(followed)
- Lockwood v. Colvin, 2016 WL 6902341, *1 (D. Conn. 2016)(followed)
- Eames v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 251, 252 (2d Cir. 1988)(followed)
- Isaacs v. Astrue, 2009 WL 1748706, *3 (W.D.N.Y. 2009)(followed)
- Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 594 (2010)(followed)
- Kerr for Kerr v. Commissioner of Social Security, 874 F.3d 926, 937 (6th Cir. 2017)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…