Hill v. Social Security Administration, No. 6:2009cv00395 - Document 25 (E.D. Okla. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Steven P. Shreder granting 22 Motion for Attorney Fees (dma, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA LAURA L. HILL, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CIV-09-395-SPS OPINION AND ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS FEES TO THE PLAINTIFF UNDER THE EAJA The Plaintiff was the prevailing party in this appeal of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration s decision denying benefits under the Social Security Act. The Plaintiff seeks an award of attorneys fees in the amount of $5,547.60 and costs in the amount of $350.00 under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. The Commissioner indicates that he has no objection to an award of attorneys fee in the amount of $5,547.60 and costs in the amount of $350.00 to the Plaintiff, but does object insofar as the request that the award be paid to Plaintiff s attorney. Upon review of the record herein, the Court finds that said amount is reasonable and that the Commissioner should be ordered to pay it to the Plaintiff as the prevailing party herein. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) ( Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party . . . fees and other expenses . . . incurred by that party in any civil action [.] ). See also Astrue v. Ratliff, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010); Manning v. Astrue, 510 F.3d 1246, 1249-50 (10th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 486, 172 L. Ed. 2d 355 (2008). Accordingly, Plaintiff s Application for an Award of Attorneys Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act and Motion for Award of Court Costs [Docket No. 22] is hereby GRANTED, and the Commissioner is hereby ordered to pay attorneys fees in the amount of $5,547.60 and costs in the amount of $350.00 to the Plaintiff as the prevailing party herein. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of April, 2011. -2-
]]>
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.
