Heilman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. Arizona

Heilman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedAugust 29, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01322

StatusUnknown

This text of Heilman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Heilman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heilman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Brenda Heilman, No. CV-25-01322-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 The parties have filed a Joint Stipulation for Award of Attorney Fees under the 16 Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) (Doc. 13). Plaintiff, through counsel, seeks 17 $2,115.45 in attorney fees. (Id. at 1). 18 In any action brought by or against the United States except one sounding in tort, 19 the EAJA provides that “a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United 20 States fees and other expenses in addition to any costs . . . unless the court finds that the 21 position of the United States was substantially justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); 22 Tobeler v. Colvin, 749 F.3d 830, 832 (9th Cir. 2014). Under the EAJA, “attorneys’ fees 23 are to be awarded to a party winning a . . . remand unless the Commissioner shows that 24 his position with respect to the issue on which the district court based its remand was 25 “substantially justified.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting 26 Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 568–69 (9th Cir. 1995)). Under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 27 U.S. 586, 595–98 (2010), EAJA fees awarded by the Court belong to Plaintiff and are 28 subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program (31 U.S.C. § 3716(c)(3)(B)). 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation for Attorney Fees Under the Equal 3|| Access to Justice Act (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $2,115.45 in 4|| attorney fees. Any check for EAJA fees shall be mailed to Plaintiff's counsel: Robin 5|| Larkin; Larkin & Fern, PLLC; 301 E. Bethany Home Rd., Ste. C-186; Phoenix, AZ 85012. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if, after receiving this Order, the 8 || Commissioner: (1) determines upon effectuation of this Order that Plaintiff does not owe 9|| a debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, and (2) agrees to waive 10 || the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3727(b), the fees will be made || payable to Plaintiffs attorney. However, if there is a debt owed under the Treasury 12|| Offset Program, the remaining EAJA fees after offset will be paid by check made out to 13 || Plaintiff but delivered to Plaintiff's attorney. 14 Dated this 28th day of August, 2025. 15 16 ip Gum SZ V7 norable’Diang4. Hunfetewa 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

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

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Brenda Heilman, No. CV-25-01322-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 The parties have filed a Joint Stipulation for Award of Attorney Fees under the 16 Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) (Doc. 13). Plaintiff, through counsel, seeks 17 $2,115.45 in attorney fees. (Id. at 1). 18 In any action brought by or against the United States except one sounding in tort, 19 the EAJA provides that “a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United 20 States fees and other expenses in addition to any costs . . . unless the court finds that the 21 position of the United States was substantially justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); 22 Tobeler v. Colvin, 749 F.3d 830, 832 (9th Cir. 2014). Under the EAJA, “attorneys’ fees 23 are to be awarded to a party winning a . . . remand unless the Commissioner shows that 24 his position with respect to the issue on which the district court based its remand was 25 “substantially justified.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting 26 Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 568–69 (9th Cir. 1995)). Under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 27 U.S. 586, 595–98 (2010), EAJA fees awarded by the Court belong to Plaintiff and are 28 subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program (31 U.S.C. § 3716(c)(3)(B)). 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Stipulation for Attorney Fees Under the Equal 3|| Access to Justice Act (Doc. 13) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $2,115.45 in 4|| attorney fees. Any check for EAJA fees shall be mailed to Plaintiff's counsel: Robin 5|| Larkin; Larkin & Fern, PLLC; 301 E. Bethany Home Rd., Ste. C-186; Phoenix, AZ 85012. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if, after receiving this Order, the 8 || Commissioner: (1) determines upon effectuation of this Order that Plaintiff does not owe 9|| a debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, and (2) agrees to waive 10 || the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3727(b), the fees will be made || payable to Plaintiffs attorney. However, if there is a debt owed under the Treasury 12|| Offset Program, the remaining EAJA fees after offset will be paid by check made out to 13 || Plaintiff but delivered to Plaintiff's attorney. 14 Dated this 28th day of August, 2025. 15 16 ip Gum SZ V7 norable’Diang4. Hunfetewa 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Heilman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heilman-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack