Filing 37

ORDER denying 35 Motion for Attorney Fees. The Commissioner shall remit to Plaintiff those benefits which have been withheld. Signed by JUDGE RICHARD SMOAK on 10/4/2011. (jcw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION TONY WATSON, Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO. 5:09-cv-38/RS-MD MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Defendant. _________________________________________ / ORDER U Before me is Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 35). Attorney Barash has filed this motion twenty-one months after judgment was entered in his client’s favor and eighteen months after fees were awarded under the EAJA. While the award of fees under 42 U.S.C. §406(b) does not contain a limitations period within the statute itself, this lengthy delay makes their award improper. The Eleventh Circuit has not articulated a bright-line limitations period under Section 406(b), however, a nearly two year delay is unreasonable. See Ramer v. Astrue, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86556, *29 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (fourteen day requirement); Newton v. Astrue, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110174, *50 (N.D. Ga. 2008) (ninety day requirement). See also Matthew Albanese, Essay, Reasonably Untimely: The Difficulty of Knowing When to File a Claim for Attorney’s Fees in Social Security Disability Cases, and an Administrative Solution, 78 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1014 (2010). The Motion (Doc. 35) is DENIED. The Commissioner shall remit to Plaintiff those benefits which have been withheld. ORDERED on October 4, 2011. /S/ Richard Smoak RICHARD SMOAK 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?