BELLOW
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
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.
In this Social Security appeal, the district court granted the plaintiff's petition for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) after reversing and remanding the Commissioner's decision. The court awarded $3,608.14 in fees to the prevailing party, with payment to be made by the government unless the plaintiff has an outstanding federal debt.
The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to attorney's fees under the EAJA as the prevailing party in the Social Security case. The court awarded fees in the amount of $3,608.14, with payment to be made directly to plaintiff's counsel by the government unless the Department of Treasury determines that the plaintiff owes a federal debt.
[1] A party who obtains a sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. …
[2] Attorney's fees may be awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act to a prevailing party in an action against the Commissioner of Social Security.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“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 standard that a plaintiff obtaining a remand in a Social Security case qualifies as a prevailing party eligible for EAJA fees
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff challenged a Social Security Administration decision denying benefits. On July 22, 2024, the district court entered an order reversing a…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Petition for Attorney's Fees (Doc. 27). By the Motion, Plaintiff seeks attorney's fees in the amount of $3,608.14 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). On July 22, 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). Therefore, for the reasons set out in Plaintiff's motion and supported by the affidavit, it is hereby
ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Petition for Attorney's Fees (Doc. 29) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff is awarded fees in the amount of $3,608.14. Unless the Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government must pay the fees to Plaintiff's counsel in accordance with Plaintiff's assignment of fees (Doc. 27-1).
DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on this 20th day of August 2024.
ANTHONY E. PORCELLI
United States Magistrate Judge cc: Counsel of Record
2