Barton v. King

Background

Lenore Barton and the Commissioner of Social Security submitted a stipulation asking the court to approve a settlement of Barton’s request for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The stipulation stated that Barton was the prevailing party in the civil action and that her net worth was less than two million dollars.

Requested Fee and Payment Terms

The parties agreed to an EAJA fee award of $2,291 for legal services provided by Katherine R. Siegfried. The stipulation explained that EAJA fees belong to the plaintiff and may be subject to offset through the Treasury Offset Program, which applies certain government debts against payments. If the Commissioner confirmed that Barton had assigned the fees to her attorney, Barton did not owe an offsettable debt, and the government waived applicable anti-assignment requirements, payment could be made to the attorney. Otherwise, any remaining amount after an offset would be paid to Barton but delivered to her attorney.

The stipulation described the payment as a compromise settlement and said it was not an admission of liability. It also stated that payment would release and bar claims concerning EAJA fees and expenses in this action, while preserving the attorney’s ability to seek fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406, subject to the EAJA’s savings provisions.

Ruling

Judge Robert M. Illman ordered EAJA attorney fees in the amount of $2,291, subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program and payable in the manner described in the parties’ stipulation.

Textual Ambiguity

The stipulation spells out the agreed amount as “two thousand two hundred ninety-one dollars,” and the order gives the numeral as $2,291. The order’s spelled-out text instead says “two thousand two hundred ninety-two dollars.” The numeral and the stipulation both identify the amount as $2,291.