Frizzo v. Commissioner of Social Security
6:14-cv-00219
M.D. Fla.Sep 16, 2015Background
- Plaintiff (Amy Jo Frizzo) obtained a judgment reversing and remanding a Social Security benefits denial on July 22, 2015.
- She moved under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) for $400 in costs (filing fee) and $4,539.35 in attorneys’ fees; the motion was unopposed.
- Plaintiff submitted detailed time records and showed the requested hourly rates complied with the EAJA inflation-adjusted cap.
- Plaintiff had signed an attorney-fee assignment to counsel dated December 26, 2013, and requested the court authorize payment directly to counsel if Treasury finds no federal debt.
- The court reviewed whether EAJA fees must be awarded to the litigant or may be paid directly to counsel in light of Astrue v. Ratliff and whether pre-award assignments are valid under 31 U.S.C. § 3727(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to EAJA fees and costs | Frizzo sought $400 costs and $4,539.35 in EAJA fees based on submitted time records and allowed rates | No opposition to fee request | Award of $400 costs and $4,539.35 in attorneys' fees to Plaintiff granted |
| Validity/effect of plaintiff's assignment of EAJA fees to counsel | Plaintiff asked court to authorize direct payment to counsel if Treasury finds no debt | No opposition; court examined statutory requirements | Court declined to order Treasury to honor assignment; award made to plaintiff (prevailing party) |
| Whether pre-award assignments comply with federal assignment statute | Assignment exists (Dec. 26, 2013) and plaintiff asked payment to counsel contingent on Treasury determination | No opposition but statute may invalidate pre-award assignment | Court found assignments predating fee determination are voidable under 31 U.S.C. § 3727(b); EAJA fee awarded to plaintiff |
| Court's authority to direct Treasury to pay counsel directly | Plaintiff requested authorization to pay counsel directly | No opposition; court limited by Treasury discretion and statutory scheme | Court did not recommend ordering Treasury to honor assignment; noted Treasury may in its discretion pay counsel if no federal debt exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010) (EAJA fees are awarded to the prevailing party, not automatically to counsel; assignments addressed in context of fee-payment practice)
- Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. U.S., 5 Cl. Ct. 142 (1984) (discusses statutory requirements for valid assignments under 31 U.S.C. § 3727)