Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brown v. Colvin

United States District Court, Sixth Circuit

June 26, 2013

DEBRA L. BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

LANNY KING, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $1, 468.75 (11.75 hours of attorney time at $125.00 per hour) plus costs in the amount of $367.25. The motion is at Docket Entry Number (DN) 14. The Commissioner does not object to the legitimacy and amount of Plaintiff's fee request but opposes Plaintiff's request that the fee be paid directly to her attorney, Donald R. Green, Jr., as opposed to Plaintiff (DN 15). Plaintiff replies that counsel is entitled to the fee (DN 16). This matter is ripe for determination by the Court.

For the reasons below, the motion shall be GRANTED except that the fees and costs shall be awarded to Plaintiff Brown and not her attorney.

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including entry of judgment, with direct review by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the event an appeal is filed (DN 10).

Undisputed Matters

Plaintiff filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner denying her claim for disability benefits.

On April 19, 2013, the Court remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings (DN 13).

The primary purpose of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) is to allow citizens to challenge federal government decisions in federal court regardless of their ability to pay for an attorney. Pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), a party may recover an award of attorney's fees against the government provided the party meets five requirements: (1) the party seeking the award is the prevailing party; (2) the application for such fees, including an itemized justification for the amount sought, is timely filed; (3) the claimant has a net worth of less than $2 million at the time the complaint was filed; (4) the position of the government was not substantially justified; and (5) there are no special circumstances which would make an award unjust.

The Commissioner concedes that Plaintiff satisfies each of the foregoing statutory requirements and that the amount of fees sought is reasonable.

Disputed Issue

The sole controverted issue in this case is to whom the EAJA fee award is payable: Plaintiff or her counsel. Counsel has submitted a copy of the Attorney-Client Contract (Fee Agreement) dated August 17, 2012. Among other things, the contract purports to assign any future EAJA fee awarded to Plaintiff "to the attorney" (DN 16-1).

Prior to Astrue v. Ratliff, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010), the Commissioner honored assignment of EAJA fee awards to counsel, such as the one in this case, and counsel was paid directly, regardless of whether the plaintiff/litigant had a pre-existing federal debt. Ratliff held that an EAJA fee award "is payable to the litigant [not the attorney] and is therefore subject to a Government offset to satisfy a pre-existing debt that the litigant owes the United States." Id. at 2524.

Ratliff, in fact, owed the Government a debt that pre-dated the district court's approval of the EAJA fee award. The Court noted, albeit in dicta, that "the Government has... continued the direct payment [to attorneys] practice where the plaintiff does not owe a debt to the government and assigns the right to receive the fees to the attorney." Id. at 2259.

In the immediate wake of Ratliff and for a significant time thereafter, a number of district courts, including some judges in the Western District of Kentucky, put language in their EAJA fee awards to the effect that, if certain conditions are satisfied, the fee shall continue to be paid directly to the attorney. See Greer v. Commissioner, 2013 WL 1212882 (E.D.Mich.) (collecting authorities in support of this approach). These courts reasoned that this practice would have the desirable effect of minimizing an unintended consequence of Ratliff, which, according to the concurring ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.