Howard v. Social Security Administration

District Court, E.D. Arkansas·Decided May 6, 2022·No. 4:20-cv-01452·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

ERIC VAUGHN HOWARD PLAINTIFF v. Case No: 4:20-cv-01452 KGB COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION DEFENDANT

ORDER Before the Court is plaintiff Eric Vaughn Howard’s motion for award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (Dkt. No. 20). Mr. Howard requests attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,342.50, costs in the amount of $402.00, and expenses in the amount of $29.58 under the EAJA (/d., at 1). The Commissioner has responded and does not object to an award of $6,372.08 in attorney’s fees and expenses and $402.00 in costs (Dkt. No. 22, at 1). For good cause shown, the Court grants Mr. Howard’s motion (Dkt. No. 20). After review of the record, the Court finds that the hours spent by counsel were reasonable. The Court approves attorney’s fees and expenses of $6,372.08 and costs of $402.00. The EAJA fee award shall be made payable to Mr. Howard in the care of and mailed to his counsel, but subject to any offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt owed by Mr. Howard to the United States. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 (2010) (holding that an award of fees under the EAJA is payable to the litigant and is therefore subject to a government offset to satisfy the litigant’s pre-existing debt to the United States). The Commissioner shall certify this award. So ordered this 6th day of May, 2022.

Kristine G. Baker United States District Judge

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

Howard v. Social Security Administration, (E.D. Ark. 2022).

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

Related

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