Moss v. Bisignano
- Dulce Foster
- 0:25-cv-00050
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Moss v. Bisignano, Magistrate Judge Foster granted the plaintiff's unopposed request for $7,878.43 in attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after the Social Security case was sent back to the agency for further review.
Social Security disability claimants and their attorneys who successfully obtain remands of agency decisions and seek attorney's fees from the government under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
What happened
In Moss v. Bisignano (Case No. 25-cv-00050), a Social Security disability claimant identified as Jaime M. sued Frank Bisignano, the Commissioner of Social Security, challenging an agency decision. The case was previously sent back (remanded) to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings based on an agreement between the parties, and no final judgment on the merits was reached in court.
Following the remand, the plaintiff's attorney filed a motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a federal law that allows certain litigants who prevail against the government to recover their legal fees. The plaintiff requested $7,878.43 in fees. The government did not object to the motion or to the dollar amount requested.
Magistrate Judge Foster granted the motion and ordered the government to pay $7,878.43 in attorney's fees. The order notes, consistent with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling (Astrue v. Ratliff), that those fees may first be used to offset any debt the plaintiff owes to the federal government. If no such debt exists and the government waives certain assignment restrictions, the fees will be paid directly to the plaintiff's law firm, Duncan Disability Law S.C. Otherwise, any remaining amount after offset will be paid by check to the plaintiff personally, with delivery to Duncan Disability Law S.C.
The detailed version
Case: Moss v. Bisignano (filed as Jaime M. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security), Case No. 25-cv-00050 (DJF), United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Decided: September 11, 2025, by United States Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster.
Background
The plaintiff, identified only as Jaime M. pursuant to the District of Minnesota's privacy policy for Social Security cases, brought suit against Frank Bisignano in his official capacity as Commissioner of Social Security. The case was previously resolved by stipulated remand (ECF No. 23), meaning both parties agreed to send the matter back to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings, without a court ruling on the merits.
The Motion
Following remand, the plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Attorney's Fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (ECF No. 27), seeking $7,878.43 in attorney's fees. The EAJA generally permits a party that prevails against the United States in civil litigation to recover attorney's fees, provided the government's position was not substantially justified. The defendant did not oppose the motion or the requested amount.
Ruling
Judge Foster granted the fee motion in full. The court ordered the government to pay $7,878.43 in EAJA attorney's fees. The order incorporates the framework from Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), under which EAJA fee awards are payable to the litigant (not automatically to the attorney) and are subject to offset against any pre-existing federal debt owed by the plaintiff under the Treasury Offset Program.
Payment Mechanics
If the Commissioner (1) determines the plaintiff owes no offsettable debt, and (2) waives the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act (a federal law generally prohibiting assignment of government claims), the fees will be paid directly to plaintiff's counsel's firm, Duncan Disability Law S.C. If the plaintiff does owe a debt subject to offset, any remaining fees after offset will be paid by check to the plaintiff. In either scenario, checks are to be delivered to Duncan Disability Law S.C., 555 Birch Street, Nekoosa, WI 54457.
Note on Case Caption
The docket caption uses the plaintiff's full name 'Moss v. Bisignano' per the case metadata, but the opinion itself uses only 'Jaime M.' consistent with the District's privacy policy for Social Security plaintiffs.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.