Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. Ohio·Decided October 14, 2021·No. 3:20-cv-00235·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON WHEAT WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:20-cv-235 vs. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL District Judge Michael J. Newman SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington Defendant.

ORDER: (1) GRANTING THE PARTIES’ JOINT MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (“EAJA”) (DOC. NO. 16); AND (2) AWARDING PLAINTIFF $4,800.00 IN EAJA FEES

This Social Security case is before the Court on the parties’ joint motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in the amount of $4,800.00. Doc. No. 16. The parties do not dispute that all requirements are met for a reasonable award of EAJA fees. /d. Therefore, the Court: (1) GRANTS the parties’ joint motion (Doc. No. 16); and (2) AWARDS Plaintiff EAJA fees in the amount of $4,800.00. Counsel for the parties shall verify whether Plaintiff owes a pre-existing debt to the United States subject to offset, consistent with Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). Ifno 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. No further matters require review in this case; accordingly, it remains TERMINATED upon the Court’s docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. October 14, 2021 s/ Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge

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

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D. Ohio 2021).

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security (Williams 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)