Stacey A. v. Bisignano
- Dulce Foster
- 0:24-cv-01310
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Stacey A. v. Bisignano, Judge Foster granted in part Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, approving a stipulated award of $10,000.
Social Security claimants who have prevailed on remand and whose attorneys seek reimbursement of legal fees from the government under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
What happened
In Stacey A. v. Bisignano (Case No. 24-cv-01310), a Social Security appeal in the District of Minnesota, the plaintiff previously won a remand of her case back to the Social Security Commissioner for further proceedings. After that victory, her attorney sought reimbursement of legal fees under a federal law called the Equal Access to Justice Act, which allows a prevailing party to recover attorney's fees from the government in certain cases.
The plaintiff originally asked for $10,975.00 in attorney's fees, but the two sides later agreed — through a joint stipulation — to a lower amount of $10,000. The court accepted that agreement.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the fee motion in part and approved the stipulation, ordering the government to pay $10,000 in attorney's fees. The opinion also notes that, under a Supreme Court ruling, those fees may first be used to offset any debt the plaintiff owes to the federal government; if no such debt exists and the government agrees, the fees may be paid directly to the plaintiff's attorney.
The detailed version
- Stacey A. v. Bisignano · No. 0:24-cv-01310
- Dulce J. Foster
- Dec. 8, 2025
Background
This is a Social Security disability appeal. The underlying case was previously remanded — meaning sent back — to the Social Security Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. Following that remand, the plaintiff's attorney filed a motion seeking reimbursement of attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, a federal statute that allows a court to award attorney's fees to a prevailing party in litigation against the federal government, provided the government's position was not substantially justified.
The Fee Request and Stipulation
The plaintiff's Fee Motion (ECF No. 30) initially sought $10,975.00 in attorney's fees. The parties subsequently filed a Joint Stipulation (ECF No. 34) agreeing to a reduced award of $10,000.00.
The Court's Ruling
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster granted the Fee Motion in part and approved the Stipulation, ordering the government to pay the plaintiff $10,000.00 in attorney's fees under the EAJA.
Treasury Offset and Payment Instructions
Consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), the court noted that EAJA fees are subject to offset — meaning the government may apply the award to reduce any preexisting debt the plaintiff owes to the United States under the Treasury Offset Program. If no such debt exists and the Commissioner agrees to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act (a federal law generally prohibiting the transfer of government payments to third parties), the fees may be paid directly to the plaintiff's attorney. If a debt does exist, the remaining fees after offset will be paid by check made out to the plaintiff. Either way, any payment check is to be delivered to the plaintiff's attorney at the address listed in the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.