Skvorak v. Berryhill
264 F. Supp. 3d 12
D.D.C.2017Background
- Skvorak sought EAJA attorney fees after remand of his Social Security case.
- Magistrate Judge Harvey recommended $11,196.35 in fees, but found the assignment to counsel under the Anti-Assignment Act invalid.
- Government opposed direct payment to counsel citing Astrue v. Ratliff’s constraints on such assignments.
- Skvorak proposed compromise: award payable to him, with the check mailed to his counsel.
- The district court independently reviewed the fee request under EAJA and endorsed the Magistrate’s fee amount.
- Court adopted the compromise approach, directing payment to Skvorak with the check mailed to counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the EAJA fee amount is proper. | Skvorak: fees are reasonable. | Government: no challenge to amount; follows standard. | Yes; $11,196.35 awarded. |
| Whether EAJA fees may be paid directly to counsel under the AAA. | Allow assignment of EAJA fees to counsel. | AAA precludes assignment. | Court endorses compromise: payment to plaintiff with check mailed to counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010) (limits direct payment of EAJA fees to counsel under AAA)
- Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 680 F.3d 721 (6th Cir. 2012) (addressed assignment of EAJA fees under AAA)
- Murkeldove v. Astrue, 635 F.3d 784 (5th Cir. 2011) (AAA as defense to assignment of attorney fees)
- United States v. Kim, 806 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2015) (pre-award assignment considerations under AAA)