Golden, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security, 6:22-cv-06252

Plaintiff Robert James G., Jr. brought an action contesting the denial of his claim for Social Security benefits.
On February 7, 2025, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded the matter to the Commissioner.
Plaintiff then sought attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), arguing he was the prevailing party.
Plaintiff and the Commissioner agreed to an attorney’s fee amount of $8,043.93, reflecting an adjusted hourly rate due to inflation.
The court reviewed the fee stipulation to independently assess its reasonableness.
Plaintiff assigned his right to EAJA fees to his counsel, subject to requirements regarding potential federal debts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Plaintiff's Status as Prevailing Party under EAJA	Plaintiff prevailed by obtaining a remand.	Not taken or not contested.	Plaintiff is a prevailing party eligible for EAJA fees.
Reasonableness of Attorney Fees Amount	Hours and rate are reasonable; CPI-adjusted.	Stipulated to amount.	The fee amount and hours are reasonable and appropriate.
Payment Assignment to Counsel	Fee can be paid to counsel via assignment.	No opposition noted.	Fee can be paid to counsel unless a federal debt offsets, then to plaintiff direct.
Government Justification for Position	Government failed to justify its position.	No substantial justification.	No evidence that government position was substantially justified; fees appropriate.

Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (remand under these circumstances makes plaintiff a prevailing party for EAJA purposes)
Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (EAJA fee awards are payable to litigants and subject to offset for federal debts)
Eames v. Bowen, 864 F.2d 251 (government bears burden to show its position was substantially justified)