Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Illinois·Decided July 12, 2022·No. 3:20-cv-00606·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

GWENDOYLN LOUISE MILLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 20-cv-606-SMY ) KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge: Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees filed pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (Doc. 31). Plaintiff seeks attorney fees in the amount of $9,247.42. Defendant has no objection (Doc. 33). Plaintiff is the prevailing party and is entitled to an award of attorney fees pursuant to the EAJA. The Court finds that the agreed upon amount is reasonable and appropriate. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 31) is GRANTED; Plaintiff is awarded $9,247.42. This award for attorney fees and expenses is in full satisfaction of all claims for attorney fees and expenses that may be payable to Plaintiff in this matter under the EAJA. Any fees paid belong to Plaintiff, not Plaintiff’s attorney, and can be offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt that the litigant owes the United States. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If Defendant can verify that Plaintiff does not owe a pre-existing debt to the government subject to the offset, Defendant will direct that the award be made payable to Plaintiff's attorney pursuant to the EAJA assignment duly signed by Plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 12, 2022

STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge

Page 2 of 2

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

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D. Ill. 2022).

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security (Miller 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)