IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

KENNETH DOUGLAS DAHL, Civ. No. 3:14-cv-00904-CL 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, 

Defendant. 

CLARKE, Magistrate Judge. 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Kenneth Douglas Dahl ("Plaintiff') moves the Court for an award of $5,596.32 

in attorney's fees under the Equal Access Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Defendant 

Social Security Administration Commissioner ("Defendant") has not filed opposition. Having 

independently reviewed Plaintiff's fee request, the Court GRANTS his motion. 

BACKGROUND 

On June 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (# 1) to obtain judicial review of Defendant's 

final decision denying his application for Social Security disability benefit.s. On September 30, 

Page 1 -ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-00904-CL Document 33 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 3
2015, this Court remanded (#29) Plaintiffs case for further proceedings. On November 10, 2015, 

Plaintiff filed his unopposed motion for EAJA fees (#32). 

LEGAL STANDARD 

A prevailing party in an action against the United States is entitled to an award of 

attorney's fees and costs under the EAJ A unless the government demonstrates that its position in 

the litigation was "substantially justified" or that "special circumstances make an award unjust." 

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(l)(A). An EAJA fee award must be reasonable. Sorenson v. Alink, 239 F.3d 

1140, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001). In determining whether a fee is reasonable, the Court considers the 

hours expended, the reasonableness of the hourly rate charged, and the results obtained. Hensley 

v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983); Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 1998) 

(applying Hensley to cases involving the EAJA). If the requested fees are not shown to be 

reasonable, then the Court may reduce the award. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433; Atkins, 154 F.3d 

at 988. 

DISCUSSION 

It is undisputed that Plaintiff is a prevailing party. Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 

1257 (9th Cir. 2001) ("An applicant for disability benefits becomes a prevailing party for the 

purposes of the EAJ A if the denial of her benefits is reversed and remanded regardless of 

whether disability benefits ultimately are awarded."). The Commission has not demonstrated that 

its position in denying Plaintiffs application was "substantially justified" or that special 

circumstances render the requested award unjust. Having reviewed the unopposed motion, the 

Court finds Plaintiffs petition is proper and the amount requested is reasonable. Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs application (#32) for $5,596.32 in EAJA fees is GRANTED. 

Page 2- ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-00904-CL Document 33 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 3
Plaintiff assigned any EAJA fees to his attorney. Pl.'s Mot, Ex. B. Therefore, the amount 

of this award shall be paid to Plaintiffs attorney upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt, 

which qualifies for offset against the award, pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program. See Astrue 

v. Ratliff 560 U.S. 586, 589 (2010). If Plaintiff has no such debt, then a check shall be made out 

to Plaintiffs attorney, and mailed to Plaintiffs attorney. If Plaintiff has a debt, then a check for 

the remaining funds, after any offset of the debt, shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to 

Plaintiffs attorney. Plaintiffs attorney's mailing address is as follows: 

Page 3- ORDER 

1336 E. Burnside St., Suite 130 

Portland, Oregon 97132 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-00904-CL Document 33 Filed 12/02/15 Page 3 of 3