Burnell v. Colvin
ORDER Granting 23 Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 3/18/2016.(evana, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00308-WYD
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)
The Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)
(ECF No. 23) is GRANTED. As set forth in the motion:
1. I ordered the case reopened under a sentence four remand. (ECF No. 19).
2. Mr. Burnell has received his notice of ward dated February 28, 2016. Additionally, he
will receive a monthly benefit amount of $1,591.00.
3. Of that total amount awarded, the Social Security Administration has withheld
$86,491.80 for attorney fees according to the award letter, but Plaintiff’s counsel believes that
$21,627.95 is the correct amount of 25% of past due benefits.
4. Plaintiff signed a continent fee agreement with his attorney where he agreed to pay
attorney fees in the amount of 25% of past due benefits.
5. Additionally, Mr. Burnell does not object to the amount of $6,400.00 to be awarded as
an attorney fee to Ms. Vasold, since Mr. Burnell will also be paid.
6. Plaintiff’s undersigned counsel expended 23 hours in representing Mr. Burnell in
Federal Court, and obtained a sentence four remand.
7. Plaintiff was awarded an EAJA fee in the amount of $3,985.00. (ECF No. 22).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that pursuant to the statute, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), Ms. Vasold
shall receive a total attorney fee award of $6,400.00, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), with
payment of EAJA fee refunded to Mr. Burnell in the amount of $3,985.00 by attorney.
Dated: March 18, 2016
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
WILEY Y. DANIEL,
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?