Holl v. Commissioner of Social Security
This text of Holl v. Commissioner of Social Security (Holl v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PAMELA H. Plaintiff, v. 5:20-CV-00304 (NAM) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
Appearances: Howard Olinsky Olinsky Law Group 250 South Clinton Street, Ste 210 Syracuse, NY 13202 Attorney for the Plaintiff
Candace Lawrence Special Assistant United States Attorney Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel J.F.K. Federal Building, Room 625 Boston, MA 02203 Attorney for the Defendant Hon. Norman A. Mordue, Senior United States District Court Judge ORDER OF THE COURT
Plaintiff commenced this action on March 18, 2020, seeking review of the Commissioner’s denial of her application for social security disability benefits under the Social Security Act. (Dkt. No. 1). The Court issued a Memorandum-Decision and Order on September 22, 2021, entering judgment in Plaintiff's favor and remanding the matter for further proceedings. (Dkt. Nos. 26, 27). Now before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for attorney’s fees
under the Equal Access to Justice Act (““EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Dkt. No. 28). The Commissioner filed a response and does not oppose the requested fees. (Dkt. No. 29). To qualify for attorney’s fees under the EAJA, the plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) she is the prevailing party; (2) she is eligible to receive an award; and (3) the position of the United States was not substantially justified. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). Even if an agency’s 4! position was not substantially justified, an award of fees may be reduced or denied if “special circumstances” would make an otherwise proper award “unjust.” Jd. at § 2412(d)(1)(A). As the prevailing party, Plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,847.55. (Dkt. No. 28). Specifically, Plaintiff's counsel seeks an award of fees for 24.9 hours of attorney time at a rate of $209.54 per hour, and 6.3 hours of paralegal time at a rate of $100 per hour. (Dkt. No. 28-1, p. 2). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's submissions and finds that her request, | Which drew no objection from the Commissioner, 1s not unreasonable. In addition, based on the remand decision and the lack of any argument to the contrary, the Court finds that the Government’s position was not substantially justified. Further, Plaintiff requests that the Court make the fee award payable directly to her counsel. (Dkt. No. 28-6, p. 2). Generally, the EAJA “awards the fees to the litigant, and thus subjects them to a federal administrative offset if the litigant has outstanding federal debts.” Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 593 (2010). However, a plaintiff has the right to assign an EAJA fee award to his/her lawyer, and where the Commissioner does not oppose the assignment, it can be honored under the Anti-Assignment Act. See Plisko v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., No. 18-CV-827, 2020 WL 3045856, at *2, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99707, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. June 8, 2020) (citing Kerr v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 874 F.3d 926, 937 (6th Cir. 2017) (“[uJnless the government waives
application of the [Anti-Assignment Act] in EAJA cases, fee awards must be paid to the prevailing party, not to the party’s lawyer”)). Here, Plaintiff has agreed to waive direct payment of the EAJA fees and assign the fees to be paid directly to her attorney. (Dkt. No. 28-6, § 5). The Government does not oppose the assignment if “Plaintiff does not owe a debt to the government that is subject to offset.” (Dkt. 29, p. 1). Therefore, the Court awards attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,847.55 payable to Plaintiff's counsel if Plaintiff has no debt registered with the Department of Treasury subject to offset. Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412, (Dkt. No. 28), is GRANTED in the amount of five thousand eight hundred and forty- | seven dollars and fifty-five cents ($5,847.55), payable to Plaintiffs counsel. IT ISSO ORDERED. Date: January 14, 2022 Syracuse, New York
Senior U.S. District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Holl v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holl-v-commissioner-of-social-security-nynd-2022.