Berry v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. North Carolina·Decided November 15, 2022·No. 3:21-cv-00240·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:21-cv-00240-RJC

CECILY BERRY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Order COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. ) ) )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Consent Motion for Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) (Doc. No. 20). By consent of the parties, the Court orders as follows: 1. The Social Security Administration shall pay $6,500.00 in attorney’s fees to the Plaintiff in full settlement and satisfaction of any and all claims for attorney’s fees for legal services rendered under the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 2. With respect to the Plaintiff’s signed assignment of EAJA fees to her attorney, in accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), the Commissioner will determine whether the Plaintiff owes a debt to the United States. If so, the debt will be satisfied first and, if any funds remain, they will be made payable to the Plaintiff and mailed to her attorney. If the Department of the Treasury reports to the Commissioner that the Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, the government will exercise its discretion and honor the assignment of EAJA fees and pay the awarded fees directly to the Plaintiff’s attorney. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Fees (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED.

November 15, 2022

Robert J. Conrad, Jr. 9, United States District Judge “ae

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Berry v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D.N.C. 2022).

Berry v. Commissioner of Social Security (Berry v. Commissioner of Social Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Astrue v. Ratliff
560 U.S. 586 (Supreme Court, 2010)