ADKINS v. ASTRUE, No. 1:2010cv00168 - Document 40 (S.D. Ind. 2011)
Court Description: Entry Granting Petition for Attorney's Fees: GRANTED 35 Motion for Attorney Fees ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 9/27/2011. (DWH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ADKINS v. ASTRUE Doc. 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA BRIAN K. ADKINS, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:10-cv-0168-SEB-TAB Entry Granting Petition for Attorney’s Fees Plaintiff Adkins’ petition under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), for attorney fees [35] is granted. Adkins seeks an award of attorney fees in the amount of $6,473.89, to which the Commissioner does not object. The only objection asserted by the Commissioner is that the fees not be paid directly to plaintiff’s counsel. Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). The Commissioner alleges that the Agency will not be able to determine whether Adkins has any pre-existing federal debts until after the court grants the award. There is a valid assignment in this case. An order directing payment to Adkins’ attorney after the government determines whether Adkins has any pre-existing federal debts accommodates the concerns discussed in Ratliff. See Smith v. Astrue, 1:09-cv-1165DML-JMS, 2011 WL 2064843 (S.D.Ind. May 25, 2011). The Commissioner shall determine whether the United States is entitled to and will exercise a right of offset (and if so, the amount of the offset) against the award because of a pre-existing debt Adkins owes the government. The amount of the fee award remaining after the offset (if any) shall be paid to Adkins’ attorney consistent with the assignment. A separate Order consistent with the foregoing shall now issue. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 09/27/2011 _______________________________ SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
