Imperial v. Commissioner of Social Security, 6:16-cv-01431

Plaintiff Paul C. Imperial obtained a sentence-four remand of his Social Security case on May 22, 2017.
Plaintiff filed an unopposed EAJA fee application seeking $5,585.98 on August 21, 2017.
Counsel Shea A. Fugate submitted contemporaneous time records showing 29 hours at $192.62/hour and supporting documentation that the requested rate complies with EAJA caps adjusted for inflation.
The magistrate judge reviewed the hours and rates and found the requested fee reasonable.
Plaintiff had signed an assignment of EAJA fees to counsel prior to any fee award; the government may refuse to honor an assignment if the claimant owes federal debt.
The magistrate recommended granting the EAJA award to Plaintiff (the prevailing party) for $5,585.98 but denied the request to order direct payment to counsel over the Anti-Assignment Act concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether EAJA fees in the requested amount are reasonable	Fees of $5,585.98 (29 hrs at $192.62) are reasonable and within statutory caps	Not opposed	Award of $5,585.98 to Plaintiff as reasonable
Whether the EAJA fee award may be paid directly to counsel per Plaintiff's pre-award assignment	Assignment authorizes direct payment to counsel	Assignment executed before award violates Anti-Assignment Act; payment must go to prevailing party unless Treasury honors assignment	Assignment invalid under Anti-Assignment Act; award must be made to Plaintiff, not ordered paid directly to counsel

Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010) (EAJA fees are awarded to the prevailing party; assignments may be honored but are subject to the Anti-Assignment Act)
Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. U.S., 5 Cl. Ct. 142 (1984) (interpretation of Anti-Assignment Act requirements for valid assignments)