Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Jacqueline Murillo-Martinez filed a civil action against the Commissioner of Social Security in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. On September 14, 2026, the court granted the parties' stipulated motion for a remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), returning the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. Judgment was entered the same day. The parties consented to the jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
Following the remand, Plaintiff moved for an award of attorney's fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, as the prevailing party. The parties filed a stipulated motion on October 20, 2026, agreeing to an award of $7,150.00 in attorney fees and expenses to Plaintiff's attorney, Margaret Lehrkind of the Lehrkind Law Office, P.C. The Commissioner did not oppose the requested relief. The court noted that under Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993), a party who wins a sentence-four remand order qualifies as a prevailing party eligible for EAJA fees.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the stipulated motion for attorney fees and expenses, finding that Plaintiff qualified as a prevailing party under EAJA by virtue of the sentence-four remand. The court determined that the government did not demonstrate its position was substantially justified and that no special circumstances existed to make an award unjust, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Based on the parties' stipulation, the court found an award of $7,150.00 in attorney fees and expenses appropriate.
The court ordered the Commissioner to pay $7,150.00 in EAJA fees and expenses to Plaintiff's counsel, Margaret Lehrkind, in accordance with the assignment of fees and the terms of the stipulated motion. The order specified that EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program (TOP), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 (2010). If the Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, the government shall make payment directly to Plaintiff's counsel.
Key Takeaways
- A sentence-four remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) renders a Social Security claimant a prevailing party eligible for EAJA fees.
- Parties may stipulate to an EAJA fee amount, and the court will grant the motion if the government does not show its position was substantially justified.
- EAJA fee awards are subject to the Treasury Offset Program, which may intercept payment if the plaintiff owes a federal debt.
- The fee award is payable to plaintiff's counsel pursuant to an assignment of fees, contingent on no federal debt offset.
- Magistrate judges may enter final orders on EAJA fee motions when the parties have consented to their jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the routine application of EAJA fee-shifting in Social Security cases following a sentence-four remand. It confirms that stipulated fee agreements between claimants and the Commissioner are sufficient for court approval when the government does not assert substantial justification for its position. The decision also highlights the operational role of the Treasury Offset Program in the disbursement of EAJA awards, ensuring that federal debts are satisfied before fees reach counsel.