Richard v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio·Decided December 17, 2020·No. 1:19-cv-00581·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI KEVIN T. RICHARD, : Case No. 1:19-cv-581 Plaintiff, : Judge Matthew W. McFarland V. ANDREW SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF © : SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. :

ORDER

This case is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 22). Due notice having been given, and the Court being fully advised, IT Is THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: iL, The Parties’ Joint Stipulation for an Award of Attorney's Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 22) is accepted and the Commissioner shall pay Plaintiff's attorney fees in the amount of $5,000.00 and costs in the amount of $0.00, for a total of $5,000.00; 2. Counsel for the parties shall verify whether or not Plaintiff owes a preexisting debt to the United States subject to offset, consistent with Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If no such pre-existing debt exists, Defendant shall pay the EAJA award directly to Plaintiff's counsel pursuant to the EAJA assignment signed by Plaintiff and counsel; a. The previously filed “Notice of Motion for Attorney’s Fees” (Doc. 20) is terminated as moot; and 4, The case remains terminated on the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Ws By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

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

Richard v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D. Ohio 2020).

Richard v. Commissioner of Social Security (Richard 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)