UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JONATHAN C., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) 2:25-cv-00498-SDN
)
FRANK BISIGNANO, )
Social Security Administration )
Commissioner, )
Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
Pursuant to the power of this Court to award fees and expenses to a prevailing party
other than the United States incurred by that party in a civil action against the United
States, including proceedings for judicial review of agency action, under the Equal Access
to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), and in light of this Court’s December 19, 2025,
Order and Judgment remanding this case to the Social Security Administration
Commissioner for further administrative proceedings, the Court ORDERS that the
United States Social Security Administration shall pay attorney’s fees in the amount of
$7,840.00 and costs in the amount of $405.00, in full satisfaction of any and all attorney’s
fees and expenses claims Plaintiff may have in this case under the Equal Access to Justice
Act (“EAJA”).
Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), these attorney’s fees are payable
to Plaintiff as the prevailing party and are subject to offset through the Treasury
Department’s Offset Program to satisfy any pre-existing debt Plaintiff may owe to the
government. If, after the entry of this Order, the Commissioner determines Plaintiff owes
no debt to the government that would subject this award of attorney’s fees to offset, the
Commissioner may honor Plaintiff’s signed assignment of EAJA fees providing for
payment of the fees to Plaintiff’s counsel, rather than to Plaintiff. If, however, Plaintiff is
discovered to owe the government any debt subject to offset, the Commissioner may pay
any attorney’s fees remaining after such offset to Plaintiff rather than to counsel.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 6th day of February, 2026.
/s/ Stacey D. Neumann
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.