Charlene Scott v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON

CHARLENE SCOTT, Case No. 2:25-cv-00735-MTK Plaintiff, ORDER v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.

KASUBHAI, United States District Judge: Following the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Remand to Agency, ECF No. 11, the Court entered judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff now moves for an order awarding fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(c)(1). ECF No. 14.

Defendant does not oppose that motion.

For the reasons set forth in the parties’ Stipulated Motion for EAJA Fees, ECF No. 14, and good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: Plaintiff is awarded $8,200 in fees under the EAJA. Under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 595-98 (2010), EAJA fees awarded by this Court belong to the Plaintiff and are subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program (31 U.S.C. § 3716(c)(3)(B) (2006)). Any EAJA fees should therefore be awarded to Plaintiff and not to Plaintiff’s attorney. If, after receiving the Court’s EAJA fee order, the Commissioner (1) determines that Plaintiff has assigned his right to EAJA fees to his attorney; (2) determines that Plaintiff does not owe a debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, and (3) agrees to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, then the EAJA fees will be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney. However, if there is a debt owed under the Treasury Offset Program, the Commissioner cannot agree to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, and the remaining EAJA fees after offset will be paid by a check or electronic fund transfer made out to Plaintiff but delivered to Plaintiff’s attorney.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 11th day of February 2026.

s/ Mustafa T. Kasubhai MUSTAFA T. KASUBHAI (he/him) United States District Judge