Bolen v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
31
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl on 11/1/2016: Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. § 406(b) 20 is granted, and the SSA is to remit the remaining $4,566.25 to Plaintiff's counsel as requested. Plaintiff's motion 21 is denied because it is time barred. cc: Counsel (JBM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OWENSBORO DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-00047 HBB
RICKY BOLEN
PLAINTIFF
VS.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM, OPINION,
AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motions (DN 20, 21) of Ricky Bolen ("Plaintiff")
for attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"),
28 U.S.C. § 2412, respectively. The Commissioner responded (DN 28, 29), and Plaintiff replied
(DN 30). This matter is ripe for determination.
BACKGROUND
On February 10, 2016, the undersigned issued a Memorandum, Opinion, and Order
concluding the ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and remanding this
case for further consideration (DN 18). On remand, the Social Security Administration (SSA)
awarded Plaintiff Disability Insurance Benefits backdated to February, 2014 (DN 30-1 p.3). The
total back pay amount was $42,265 (Id. at p.4). The SSA withheld $10,566.25, twenty-five
percent of the total, in anticipation of paying attorneys' fees (Id.).
Presently, the SSA has awarded Plaintiff's counsel $6,000, the maximum amount
ordinarily allowed under the regulations. 42 U.S.C. § 406(a) et seq. But the regulations allow an
attorney whose client receives a favorable judgment as a result of an appeal to the District Court
to obtain a fee in excess of $6,000, but not to exceed twenty-five percent of the total amount
recovered by the Plaintiff. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A).
A
The undersigned will address each of Plaintiff's motions in turn. The motion located at
(DN 20) requests the outstanding amount still being held by the SSA, a total of $4,566.25 (Id. at
p.1). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is granted.
The United States references the fee agreement which states that Plaintiff's counsel shall
take the lesser of either $6,000 or 25% of any amount recovered (DN 28 at p.3 (citing Tr. 124)).
The United States contends the fee agreement does not distinguish between services performed
before the ALJ and those performed before the District Court (Id.). But this argument falls short
by failing to consider the entirety of the fee agreement, which goes on to state:
It is agreed that if the Social Security Administration favorably
decides Client's claim at the Appeals Council level, or at the ALJ
hearing level after a remand by the Appeals Council or United
States District Court, Attorney may petition the Social Security
Administration for approval to charge a fee not in excess of
twenty-five percent (25%) of all past-due benefits.
(Tr. 124).
The District Court remanded for further proceedings. The ALJ found favorably for the
Plaintiff and awarded benefits. Plaintiff's counsel is thus properly petitioning the SSA for the
remainder of the fee contemplated by the fee agreement. The undersigned concludes that
2
Plaintiff's request is appropriate, and the remaining $4,566.25 is to be remitted to Plaintiff's
counsel.
B
Plaintiff filed a second motion at (DN 21). This motion functionally serves as a safety
net, requesting a nearly identical sum to the previous motion, $4,676.31 (DN 21 at p.1), but
brought under EAJA. Moreover, Plaintiff later clarifies that these motions are meant to be read
in the alternative, and not as motions for two forms of relief (DN 30 at p.1). Because the
undersigned concludes this motion is time barred, it is denied.
EAJA allows for the recovery of attorneys' fees in suit against the United States unless
the United States' position is found to be particularly justified. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). An
application for fees under EAJA must be filed no more than thirty days following the entry of a
final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B).
In this case, final judgment was entered on February 10, 2016 (DN 19). According to
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), the United States' time to appeal expired sixty days
following the entry of a final judgment. Thus, the final day for the United States to file an appeal
was April 11, 2016, and the final day for Plaintiff to file pursuant to EAJA was May 11, 2016.
Plaintiff did not file this EAJA motion until September 2, 2016, well outside the applicable
deadline for EAJA purposes.
Notably, Plaintiff does not respond to the issue of time bar in the reply, and Plaintiff does
not assert any argument that equitable tolling should apply here (See DN 30). The undersigned
therefore concludes that Plaintiff's motion for fees brought under EAJA is denied.
3
ORDER
1. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C.
§ 406(b) (DN 20) is granted, and the SSA is to remit the remaining $4,566.25 to Plaintiff's
counsel as requested.
2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (DN 21) is denied because it is
time barred.
November 1, 2016
Copies:
Counsel
4
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?