Wilkerson v. Colvin

Filing 23

ORDER granting 22 Motion for Attorney Fees.in the amount of $5,501.69. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 6/12/17. (cmr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION CECELIA WIILKERSON, as Mother and Next Friend of B.B., a Minor child, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration,1 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CV 114-100 _________ ORDER _________ On June 18, 2015, the Court granted a reversal and remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and subsequently awarded Plaintiff $5,042.39 in attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). (Doc. nos. 17, 21.) Because the Administrative Law Judge awarded Plaintiff past due benefits on remand, Plaintiff now moves for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in the amount of $5,501.69, which represents twenty-five percent of the past due benefits awarded to Plaintiff minus the previously-awarded EAJA fees and expenses. See Jackson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 601 F.3d 1268, 1274 (11th Cir. 2010) (allowing for attorney who receives fees under both the EAJA 1 The Court takes judicial notice that on January 20, 2017, Nancy A. Berryhill became the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to substitute Nancy A. Berryhill as Defendant in this case. and § 406(b) to effectuate required refund of the smaller fee by deducting EAJA award from § 406(b) request); Paltan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 518 F. App’x 673, 674 (11th Cir. 2013). The Acting Commissioner did not file a response to the motion, and it is therefore deemed unopposed. Loc. R. 7.5. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, (doc. no. 22), and awards attorney’s fees under § 406(b) in the amount of $5,501.69. SO ORDERED this 12th day of June, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia. 2

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?