Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

DECISION AND ENTRY denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration of Attorney Fees- Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that: 1. The Motion For Reconsideration of Attorney Fees (Doc. # 21 ) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 10/16/17. (kma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MARY E. MILLER,
Plaintiff,

:
:
Case No. 3:15cv00153

vs.

:

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration,
Defendant.

:

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington
(By consent of the parties)

:
:

DECISION AND ENTRY

This social security case is before the Court upon the Motion For Reconsideration
of Attorney Fees (Doc. # 21), filed by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney’s Response in
Opposition. (Doc. #22). Plaintiff’s counsel sought an award of attorney fees under 42
U.S.C. § 406(b)(1), which this Court previously granted. Plaintiff apparently believes that
the attorney fee award should be paid to her rather than her attorney.
Plaintiff has expressed dissatisfaction with the services of her attorney despite the
fact that he was able to obtain benefits for her. Most of Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction stems
from her erroneous belief that her attorney caused the delay that she undoubtedly suffered

in this case. However, it is abundantly clear that the fault for the delay lies with the
Commissioner, which was acknowledged by Commissioner’s counsel. Indeed, the actions
taken by her attorney were made in an attempt to protect her claims which were
ultimately successful.
Plaintiff also asserts that her attorney did not challenge any findings as the result of
the hearing before the ALJ. The record reveals that this assertion is completely
inaccurate. Plaintiff’s attorney did indeed challenge the decision of the ALJ and
ultimately prevailed in this Court. Social Security applicants must go through a long and
rigorous process in order to obtain benefits. In all cases where the Commissioner denies
benefits, the next step is to file an appeal in this Court. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim that her
attorney “...filed a Federal lawsuit prolonging the award of my benefits” is completely
mistaken. In fact, it is because of the actions of Plaintiff’s counsel that she ultimately
prevailed in this Court. As such, the skill and extensive experience of Plaintiff’s counsel
in litigating social security cases—and in litigating this case—is commensurate with
the attorney fee previously awarded.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that:
1.
The Motion For Reconsideration of Attorney Fees (Doc. # 21) is
DENIED;
2. The Clerk of Court is ordered to mail a copy of this ORDER to Plaintiff
Mary Miller at her last known address- 85 Ridge Rd, Apt. #41, Brookville,
Ohio 45309, and,

3.

October 16, 2017

The case remains terminated on the docket of this Court.

s/Sharon L. Ovington
Sharon L. Ovington
United States Magistrate Judge