(SS) Fillmore v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:20-cv-01599

Plaintiff Haley J. Fillmore filed a civil action against Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security; the parties stipulated to an EAJA fee award following resolution of the case.
Parties agreed to an EAJA attorney-fee award of $3,778.75 and that no costs would be awarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
The stipulation states fees shall be payable to Fillmore, but if the Department of the Treasury determines she owes no federal debt, payment will be made directly to counsel (Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing / Cyrus Safa) pursuant to an assignment.
The government’s ability to honor the assignment is subject to the Treasury Offset Program and Astrue v. Ratliff; the Treasury will determine whether offsets apply after the court’s EAJA order.
The stipulation is a compromise settlement and not an admission of liability; payment constitutes a complete release of any EAJA fee claims related to this action.
The award is without prejudice to counsel’s ability to seek Social Security Act fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to EAJA savings-clause principles. The court approved the stipulation and entered the order on December 21, 2021.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether EAJA fees should be awarded and in what amount	Fillmore sought EAJA fees for counsel totaling $3,778.75	Government stipulated to that amount as a compromise	Court approved the stipulated EAJA award of $3,778.75 and no costs
Whether EAJA fees may be paid directly to counsel pursuant to an assignment	Fillmore assigned EAJA fees to counsel and requests payment to counsel if no federal debt exists	Government agrees payment may be made to counsel only if Treasury determines Fillmore owes no federal debt and offset does not apply	Payment ordered to Fillmore; if Treasury finds no federal debt, Treasury will make payment directly to counsel per the assignment; subject to offset determination
Effect of the Treasury Offset Program on enforcement of an assignment	Fillmore argues assignment should be honored consistent with retainer	Government asserts Astrue v. Ratliff controls and an assignment may be denied if offsets apply	Court recognized the assignment is subject to the Treasury Offset Program and Astrue v. Ratliff; Treasury will determine applicability of offsets
Whether this EAJA award precludes seeking 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) fees	Fillmore reserves counsel’s right to seek 406(b) fees	Government agrees award is without prejudice to 406(b) request	Court approved the stipulation preserving counsel’s right to request 406(b) fees later

Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010) (assignment of EAJA fees may be affected by Treasury Offset Program and prevailing-party-payment rules)