Opinion
20-cv-12822
02-11-2022
IDELLA REID, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL'S PETITION FOR ATTORNEY FEES (ECF No. 20)
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In this action, Plaintiff Idella Reid challenged the denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits. (See Compl., ECF No. 1.) On October 18, 2021, the Court issued a stipulated order remanding this action to Defendant Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to Sentence Four of the Social Security Act “for further administrative action, including a new decision [on Reid's application] applying all relevant regulations.” (Order, ECF No. 18, PageID.805.)
On January 17, 2022, Reid's counsel filed a petition for attorney fees and costs in this action pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a), (d) (the “EAJA”). (See Mot., ECF No. 20.) Reid's counsel seeks fees in the amount of $5,595.50 and costs in the amount of $103.78. (See id., PageID.814.)
The Commissioner filed a response to Reid's counsel's motion on January 27, 2022. (See Resp., ECF No. 21.) The Commissioner had “no substantive objection to the allowance of the amount of fees sought in [Reid's] EAJA Application for Fees and Expenses. [The Commissioner] agree[d] that the payment of Five Thousand Six-Hundred Ninety-Nine Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($5,699.28) by the United States Social Security Administration to [Reid], provides for full settlement in satisfaction of any and all claims for attorney's fees, costs, and expenses under the EAJA.” (Id., PageID.830.)
Here, for the reasons stated in Reid's counsel's petition and supporting documents, the Court finds that the requested fee amount is reasonable for the services rendered. Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, and in Reid's counsel's petition for attorney fees (ECF No. 21), the petition is GRANTED. The Court AWARDS Reid $5,699.28 in attorney fees and costs. The Commissioner shall pay that amount to Reid within thirty days of this order subject to any applicable off-set. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 (2010).
IT IS SO ORDERED.