UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION (at London)

CLAUDE HENEGAR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 6: 22-051-DCR ) V. ) ) KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ) MEMORANDUM ORDER SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. )

*** *** *** *** Plaintiff Claude Henegar protectively filed an application for Supplemental Security Income benefits on June 4, 2020. [Administrative Transcript (“Tr.”) 321-37] Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Joyce Francis issued a written decision denying Henegar’s claims on November 3, 2021. [Tr. 10-36] Thereafter, the Appeals Council denied his request for review. [Tr. 1-6] Henegar filed this action on March 11, 2022, contending that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. [Record No. 1] After filing an answer denying the plaintiff’s allegations, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security filed an unopposed motion to remand the matter to the Social Security Administration for a rehearing pursuant to sentence four of

(g). [Record Nos. 9, 13] That motion was granted. [Record No. 14] Patrick House, counsel for the plaintiff, has now filed a motion for attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA),

. [Record No. 16] Specifically, House seeks fees of $3,125.00, based on 25 hours of work performed at a rate of $125.00 per hour. [Id.] The defendant does not object to the amount requested. [Record No. 17] The EAJA requires payment of fees and expenses to the prevailing party in an action

against the United States unless the government’s position was substantially justified.

(d)(1)(A). The EAJA authorizes awarding fees “based upon prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of the services furnished,” but specifies that the award “shall not [exceed] $125 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor . . . justifies a higher fee.”

(d)(2)(A). A party seeking fees under the EAJA must submit an application within 30 days after a final judgment including “(1) a showing that the applicant is a prevailing party; (2) a showing that the applicant is

eligible to receive an award . . . and (3) a statement of the amount sought together with an itemized account of time expended and rates charged.” Scarborough v. Principi,

(2004) (citing

(d)(1)(B)). The party seeking fees must also allege that the position of the United States was not substantially justified.

Henegar is a “prevailing party” under the statute because his case was remanded under sentence four of

(g). See Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,

(6th Cir. 2012) (citing Shalala v. Schaefer,

(1993) (“A sentence four remand makes the plaintiff a ‘prevailing party’ under the EAJA.”)). And he is eligible to receive an award because his net worth did not exceed two million dollars at the time he filed his complaint. [See Record No. 3.] Additionally, House has provided an itemized account of the time expended on this case, which is reasonable. [Record No. 16-1, pp. 2-3] Finally, the plaintiff’s motion alleges that the position of the United States was not substantially justified. [Record No. 16, p. 2] Because Henegar’s motion complies with the EAJA’s requirements, the plaintiff will be awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,125.00, based on 25 hours worked at a rate of $125.00 per hour. Henegar’s motion includes a request that the award be paid directly to House. [Record No. 16] However, an award under the EAJA is payable to the prevailing party, not to the party’s attorney. See Astrue v. Ratliff,

(2010). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Motion for Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act,

[Record No. 16] is GRANTED. 2. The plaintiff is awarded $3,125.00 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act,

(d). The award shall be payable to Claude Henegar. Dated: October 13, 2022. ALE = CP □ ti Danny C. Reeves, Chief Judge arene (United States District Court Ss” Eastern District of Kentucky

-3-