Parks v. Social Security Administration

District Court, E.D. Arkansas·Decided July 17, 2023·No. 3:22-cv-00138·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION MAVERICK PARKS PLAINTIFF

Case No. 3:22-cv-00138-JTK

KILOLO KIJAKAZI DEFENDANT Acting Commissioner Social Security ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). (Doc. No. 23) Plaintiff requests a total of $3,862.54 (which includes $3,840.55 in fees and $21.99 in expenses). (Doc. No. 24) Defendant does not object to this award. (Doc. No. 25) After careful consideration, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees. EAJA fees are payable to Plaintiff, not Plaintiff's attorney, and such fees are subject to an offset when the Plaintiff has outstanding federal debts. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 (2010). Therefore, subject to any offset, payment by check to the order of the Plaintiff, in care of his attorney, will issue to Plaintiffs attorney. Accordingly, the Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. No. 23) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $3,862.54. SO ORDERED THIS 17th day of July, 2023. :

JEROMET.KEARNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Parks v. Social Security Administration, (E.D. Ark. 2023).

Parks v. Social Security Administration (Parks 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)