METCALF

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

M.D. Fla. | 2022-12-22

No. 21

District Court, M.D. Florida (2022)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act but denied the request for direct payment to counsel.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sued the Commissioner of Social Security after his disability benefits application was denied. The case was remanded, and judgment was enter…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Anti-Assignment Act 28 U.S.C. § 2412(D) Equal Access To Justice Act

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Anti-Assignment Act cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (Doc. No. 21) FILED: December 21, 2022

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

By the present motion, filed on December 21, 2022, Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Doc. No. 21. Plaintiff requests a total of $5,943.28 in attorney’s fees under the EAJA, for 25.5 hours of work performed by his counsel in 2022. Id. at 1; Doc. No. 21-2. Plaintiff also appears to request that the Court authorize payment of the EAJA award directly to his counsel. Doc. No. 21, at 2; Doc. No. 21-3. The Commissioner does not oppose the motion. Doc. No. 21, at 3.

Upon consideration, and absent any objection from the Commissioner, the Court finds the request for fees pursuant to the EAJA well taken. Accordingly, the motion is due to be granted to the extent that it requests an award of $5,943.28 in attorney’s fees under the EAJA. However, insofar as Plaintiff requests that the Court honor the assignment of the EAJA award directly to his counsel (Doc. No. 21- 3), the motion is due to be denied because Plaintiff has not demonstrated compliance with the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3727(b). See Crumbley v. Colvin, No. 5:13-cv-291 (MTT), 2014 WL 6388569, at *4-5 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 14, 2014); Huntley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:12-cv-613-Orl-37TBS, 2013 WL 5970717, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2013). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED in part, to the extent that Plaintiff is awarded a total of $5,943.28 in attorney’s fees under the EAJA. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.” DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on December 22, 2022.

LESLIE NOFFIIAN PRICE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

Footnotes

1 The parties have consented to the undersigned’s jurisdiction for resolution of this Motion. See Doc. Nos. 22–23. Plaintiff, through counsel of record, filed a complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security regarding the denial of an application for disability benefits. Doc. No. 1. On October 19, 2022, pursuant to an unopposed motion to remand filed by the Commissioner (Doc. No. 17), the Court reversed and remanded the case to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. No. 19. See also Doc. No. 18. On October 20, 2022, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against the Commissioner. Doc. No. 20.

2 The government may exercise its discretion to honor Plaintiff's assignment of attorney’s fees awarded under the EAJA if the government determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, but the Court will not order the government to do so.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Hengerer v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2014 WL 6388569 (M.D. Fla. 2026)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw