Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 13, 2020

Workman v. Saul

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:19-cv-03895
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Fee PetitionSocial Security
In one sentence

In Workman v. Saul, Judge Rogers approved a $3,824.40 Equal Access to Justice Act attorney-fee award for Bobbi G. Workman.

Who this affects

Bobbi G. Workman and her counsel received an approved $3,824.40 EAJA fee award, subject to the stated payment and offset terms; the Commissioner was ordered to pay it.

What happened

In Workman v. Saul, the court had previously reversed the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision and sent the case back for another hearing. After that ruling, the parties agreed on an attorney-fee award under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The agreement set the award at $3,824.40. It preserved the right to seek separate fees under the Social Security Act, while stating that payment would resolve claims for Equal Access to Justice Act fees and costs connected with this case.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers approved the parties’ stipulation and ordered the defendant to pay the award. The payment was to be made to Bobbi G. Workman, subject to possible government debt offset and a possible assignment of the fees to her lawyer.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Workman v. Saul · No. 4:19-cv-03895
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
May 13, 2020

Background

The court stated that on February 11, 2020, it had reversed the final decision of Andrew Saul, the Commissioner of Social Security, and remanded the matter for a rehearing under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Judgment had been entered.

Fee agreement

The parties stipulated to an award of $3,824.40 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). The stipulation described the amount as reasonable and as a compromise settlement of Bobbi G. Workman’s request for EAJA fees. It did not constitute an admission of liability or a concession that the original administrative decision denying benefits was not substantially justified.

The agreement stated that payment would fully release and bar claims by Workman or her counsel relating to EAJA fees in this action. It also preserved, without prejudice, the right of counsel to seek fees under section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the EAJA savings-clause provisions.

Payment terms and ruling

The fees were to be made payable to Workman. Under the agreement, the government would determine whether the fees were subject to an offset through the Treasury Department’s debt-offset program. If the Treasury Department determined that Workman did not owe a federal debt, the government would arrange for payment directly to Harvey P. Sackett under Workman’s assignment of the fees.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered: “Pursuant to the stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.” The order approved the agreed EAJA award of $3,824.40.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.