Heizler v. Bisignano
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-00425
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Heizler v. Bisignano, Magistrate Judge Foster granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion for $5,670.21 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act following a court-ordered remand of a Social Security case to the Commissioner for further proceedings.
Social Security claimants who obtain remands of their cases and seek attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and their attorneys.
What happened
In Heizler v. Bisignano (Case No. 25-cv-00425), the plaintiff, identified only as Jeffrey H., had sued Frank Bisignano, the Commissioner of Social Security, challenging an agency decision. The case was sent back (remanded) to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings based on an agreement between the parties, and the plaintiff then asked the court to award attorney fees under a federal law called the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which allows people who successfully challenge the government in court to recover their legal costs.
The plaintiff sought $5,670.21 in attorney fees. The government did not oppose the motion or dispute the amount requested. The fees are governed by a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Astrue v. Ratliff, which means the fee award can be reduced (offset) if the plaintiff owes any pre-existing debt to the federal government through the Treasury Offset Program.
Magistrate Judge Foster granted the fee motion and ordered the government to pay $5,670.21 in attorney fees. Whether the check is made payable to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff's law firm, Greeman Toomey PLLC, depends on whether the plaintiff owes a federal debt subject to offset and whether the Commissioner agrees to waive certain legal requirements. All payments are to be delivered to Greeman Toomey PLLC in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The detailed version
Case: Heizler v. Bisignano, No. 25-cv-00425 (JRT/DJF) Court: United States District Court for the District of Minnesota Judge: United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster Date: September 5, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Jeffrey H. (identified only by first name and last initial per district policy) filed suit against Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, challenging a Social Security Administration (SSA) decision. The case was resolved by stipulation (agreement) of the parties, resulting in a remand — meaning the court sent the case back to the SSA for further administrative proceedings rather than deciding it on the merits. Following the remand, plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney Fees (ECF No. 17).
Legal Basis
The motion was brought under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The EAJA permits a prevailing party in a civil action against the United States to recover attorney fees and costs unless the government's position was substantially justified or special circumstances make an award unjust.
Amount Sought
Plaintiff sought $5,670.21 in attorney fees. The defendant Commissioner did not oppose the motion or the amount. (ECF No. 23.)
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Foster granted the Fee Motion, ordering the government to pay $5,670.21 in EAJA attorney fees.
Offset and Payment Mechanics
Consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), the fee award may be subject to offset if the plaintiff has a pre-existing debt to the United States subject to the Treasury Offset Program. - If the Commissioner determines no such debt exists and agrees to waive the Anti-Assignment Act's requirements, the fees will be paid directly to plaintiff's law firm, Greeman Toomey PLLC. - If a debt exists and the Anti-Assignment Act cannot be waived, the fees remaining after offset will be paid by check to the plaintiff personally. - In either scenario, the check is to be delivered to Greeman Toomey PLLC, 250 Second Avenue South, Suite 120, Minneapolis, MN 55401.
Significance
This is a routine fee award order in a Social Security remand case with no opposition from the government. No merits ruling was made; the case was resolved by stipulation.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.