MATTHEWS
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

M.D. Fla. | 2022-06-14
No. 8:21-cv-967
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's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act because the motion was unopposed and the Commissioner's position was not substantially justified.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff moved for attorney's fees and costs under the EAJA after his case was remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security. The Commissioner did …

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

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Assignment Of Eaja Fees Substantially Justified Position Equal Access To Justice Act Costs

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assignment Of Eaja Fees cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Plaintiff Jonathan Tyler Matthews moves for attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. Section 2412. (Doc. 23). The Commissioner does not oppose the motion. (Id. at 3). Mr. Matthews requests $2,649.47 in attorney’s fees. The EAJA permits awards for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing party against the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2412. A March 31, 2022 order remanded the case to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 21). The Clerk entered judgment in

Accordingly, Mr. Matthews’ motion for attorney’s fees under the EAJA (Doc. 23) is GRANTED. Mr. Matthews is awarded $2,649.47 in attorney’s fees. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on June 14, 2022. Aranda. Apna he Sassoug_

AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Footnotes
1 Kilolo Kijakazi is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security and is automatically substituted as a party pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). See also section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 USC 405(g) (action survives regardless of any change in the person occupying the office of Commissioner of Social Security). favor of Mr. Matthews. (Doc. 22). The Commissioner does not contest the following: Mr. Matthews is the prevailing party; Mr. Matthews’ net worth was less than $2 million when he filed his complaint; the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified; and the Commissioner has no objection to the requested award of attorney’s fees. (Doc. 253, pp. 1–2). A court should grant a Social Security claimant’s request for attorney’s fees when it is unopposed. See Jones v. Colvin, No. 8:13-cv-2900-VMC-AEP, 2015 WL 7721334 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2015) (awarding unopposed attorney’s fees request). No special circumstances make an attorney’s fees award in this matter unjust. Thus, Mr. Matthews is entitled to $2,649.47 in attorney’s fees. Attorney’s fees awarded to a claimant under the EAJA can be offset to satisfy the claimant’s pre-existing debt to the United States. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 (2010). Following this order, the United States Department of the Treasury will determine whether Mr. Matthews owes a debt to the United States. Mr. Matthews assigned his rights to EAJA fees to his attorney. (Doc. 23, Ex. 1). If Mr. Matthews has no federal debt, the United States will accept his assignment of EAJA fees and pay the fees directly to counsel.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw