UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

RODNEY E. MILLER 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 3:13-CV-380 JD 

OPINION AND ORDER

This was an appeal of a final decision of the Defendant Commissioner of Social Security 

to deny benefits to the Plaintiff, Rodney E. Miller. The Court found in favor of Mr. Miller and 

remanded this case to the Commissioner for further proceedings, and the parties have now filed a 

Joint Stipulation to Award EAJA Fees in the amount of $6,000.00. [DE 30]. 

The EAJA provides that “a court may award reasonable fees and expenses of 

attorneys . . . to the prevailing party in any civil action brought by or against the United States or 

any agency.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b). A party seeking an award of fees for a successful action 

against the government is entitled to recover his attorneys’ fees if: (1) he was a prevailing party; 

(2) the government’s position was not substantially justified; (3) there are no special 

circumstances that would make an award unjust; and (4) the application for fees is timely filed 

with the district court (that is, within thirty days after the judgment is final and not appealable). 

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), (B) and (d)(2)(G); Cunningham v. Barnhart, 440 F.3d 862, 863 (7th 

Cir. 2006); Golembiewski v. Barnhart, 382 F.3d 721, 723–24 (7th Cir. 2004). Attorneys’ fees 

may be awarded if either the Commissioner’s pre-litigation conduct, which includes the 

Administrative Law Judge’s decision, or the Commissioner’s litigation position lacked 
2 

substantial justification. Cunningham, 440 F.3d at 863; Golembiewski, 382 F.3d at 724. To be 

substantially justified, the Commissioner’s position must have a reasonable basis in law and fact, 

and there must be a reasonable connection between the two. Id. The Commissioner has the 

burden of establishing that its position was substantially justified. Id.

Noting the parties’ agreement that a fee award is justified in this case, the Court 

GRANTS the parties’ stipulation [DE 30]. Accordingly, Mr. Miller is awarded an EAJA fee 

award in the amount of $6,000.00, to be paid directly to his attorneys, Frederick J. Daley, Jr. and 

Daley Disability Law, pursuant to the assignment entered between Mr. Miller and his attorneys, 

provided the Commissioner determines that Mr. Miller does not have any pre-existing debt to the 

federal government subject to offset. Mathews-Sheets v. Astrue, 653 F.3d 560, 565 (7th Cir. 

2011) (“[I]f there is an assignment, the only ground for the district court’s insisting on making 

the award to the plaintiff is that the plaintiff has debts that may be prior to what she owes her 

lawyer.”) (citing Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010) (holding that the EAJA prohibits 

payment of an award directly to a petitioner’s attorney absent contractual and other assignmentbased rights)). If Mr. Miller has any pre-existing debt to the federal government subject to 

offset, then the Commissioner may deduct such amounts from this fee award. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: December 8, 2014 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court