Husband v. Astrue

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 11, 2008
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court
CHRISTOPHER HUSBAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 07-7058
(D.C. No. 05-CV-285-FHS)
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, (E.D. Okla.)
Commissioner, Social Security
Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Husband appeals the district court’s order directing the
payment of attorney’s fees awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act
(EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), to him rather than to his attorney. Exercising
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and
collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent
with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
The EAJA provides, in pertinent part,
Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall
award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and
other expenses . . . incurred by that party in any civil action (other
than cases sounding in tort), including proceedings for judicial
review of agency action, brought by or against the United States in
any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds
that the position of the United States was substantially justified or
that special circumstances make an award unjust.
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The question presented in this appeal is whether the
district court erred in refusing to order payment of the EAJA fee award directly to
Mr. Husband’s attorney.
On the Commissioner’s motion, we stayed this appeal pending our decision
in Manning v. Astrue, 510 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2007), pet. for cert. filed,
__ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. May 22, 2008) (No. 07-1468). In Manning we held that the
EAJA “statutory language clearly provides that the prevailing party, who incurred
the attorney’s fees, and not that party’s attorney, is eligible for an award of
attorney’s fees.” Id. at 1249-50. We concluded that the legislative history and
uncodified portions of the EAJA also supported our interpretation. Id. at
1251-52. And we rejected further arguments to the contrary, based upon an
alleged “chilling effect” of our decision on claimants’ attempts to obtain
representation and the claimed inconsistency of not awarding EAJA fees to pro se
claimants. Id. at 1254, 1253. We acknowledged ordering payment of EAJA fees
directly to counsel in Weakley v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 575, 580 (10th Cir. 1986), but
-2-
we noted that case did not address whether the claimant or the claimant’s attorney
was entitled to recover the fees. Manning, 510 F.3d at 1253. Finally, we
recognized the Commissioner’s previous practice of paying EAJA fees directly to
claimants’ attorneys, but emphasized that “we are bound by the statutory
language, legislative history, and case law.” Id. at 1255.
We addressed each of Mr. Husband’s appeal arguments in Manning and our
decision in that case is controlling. We therefore conclude that the district court
correctly ordered payment of the EAJA fees award to Mr. Husband, rather than to
his attorney.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-3-