OSORIO
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

M.D. Fla. | 2024-12-05
No. 8:23-CV-2960
District Court, M.D. Florida (2024)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

In this Social Security Administration appeal, the district court granted plaintiff's unopposed petition for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) in the amount of $3,852.76 following the court's prior reversal and remand of the Commissioner's decision.


Holding

Plaintiff is the prevailing party entitled to EAJA attorney fees in the amount of $3,852.76. Unless the Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government must pay the fees directly to Plaintiff's counsel in accordance with the assignment.


Key Quotes

“concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party”

Establishes the legal basis for treating Plaintiff as a prevailing party entitled to EAJA fees following the reversal and remand

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff challenged a Social Security Administration decision. On August 26, 2024, the court entered an order reversing and remanding the case to the…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Unopposed Petition for Attorney Fees (Doc. 27). By the motion, Plaintiff seeks attorney's fees in the amount of $3,852.76 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). On August 26, 2024, this Court entered an Order reversing and remanding the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings (Doc. 24). Thereafter, the Clerk entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff (Doc. 25).

As the prevailing party, Plaintiff now requests an award of attorney's fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); cf. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300–02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party), superseded by rule on other grounds, Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2)(B). After issuance of an order awarding EAJA fees, the United States Department of the Treasury will determine whether Plaintiff owes a debt to the government. If Plaintiff has no discernable federal debt, the government will accept Plaintiff's assignment of EAJA fees and pay the fees directly to Plaintiff's counsel.

The Commissioner does not oppose the requested relief (Doc. 27, ¶ 6). Additionally, Plaintiff's attorney filed an affidavit in support of the motion (Doc. 27, at 5-6), and Plaintiff assigned EAJA fees to Plaintiff's counsel (Doc. 27-2). Therefore, for the reasons set out in Plaintiff's motion and supported by the affidavit and Assignment of EAJA Fees, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's Unopposed Petition for Attorney Fees (Doc. 27) is

GRANTED.

2. Plaintiff is awarded fees in the amount of $3,852.76. Unless the Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government must pay the fees and costs to Plaintiff's counsel in accordance with Plaintiff's assignment (Doc. 27, at 3).

DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on this 5th day of December 2024.

ANTHONY E. PORCELLI

United States Magistrate Judge cc: Counsel of Record


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw