Channell v. Commissioner of Social Security
Channell v. Commissioner of Social Security
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ORANGEBURG DIVISION
Christopher Courtland Channell, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.:5:19cv172-MGL ) Andrew Saul, Commissioner, ) Social Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. )
CONSENT ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Counsel’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. (Dkt. Doc. No. 23.) On December 17, 2019, the Court reversed the Commissioner’s decision that had denied Plaintiff’s claim for Supplemental Security Income and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of
42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Dkt. Doc. No 21.) Plaintiff then filed and documented a request for fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act,
28 U.S.C. § 2412(“EAJA”). However, Plaintiff’s EAJA request listed two different amounts and, therefore, it was unclear which amount Plaintiff was requesting. The Commissioner filed a response indicating his consent to Plaintiff’s request, but without clarifying the amount to which he consented. (Dkt. Doc. No. 24.) At the Court’s request, the parties have conferred and agreed that Plaintiff should be awarded Three Thousand Four Hundred Twenty-Two dollars and 25/100 cents ($3,422.25) under the EAJA. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion and directs the Commissioner to pay Plaintiff $3,422.25. Such payment shall constitute a complete release and bar from any and all further claims that Plaintiff may have under EAJA to fees, costs, and expenses incurred in connection with disputing the Commissioner’s decision. This award is without prejudice to the rights of Plaintiff’s counsel to seek attorney’s fees under section
206(b) of the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the offset provisions of EAJA. Under Astrue v. Ratliff,
130 S. Ct. 2521, 2528-29(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). Therefore, the Court orders EAJA fees to be paid to the Plaintiff. SO ORDERED, this __1_8_ day of __M__a_r_c_h________, 2020.
__s_/ _M__ar_y_ _G_e_ig_e_r_ _L_e_w_i_s____________ The Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis United States District Judge District of South Carolina
Reference
- Status
- Unknown