Cook v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
ORDER: Granting Motion for Attorney Fees 30 . Signed on 2/7/2017 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (joha)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Plaintiff Lloyd Cook brought this action seeking review of the Commissioner's final
decision to deny disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. In a September
2, 2014 Opinion & Order, Judge Redden reversed the Commissioner's decision and ordered that
the case be remanded for further proceedings.1 Judgment was entered on September 2, 2014.
Upon remand, Plaintiff eventually obtained a favorable decision from an ALJ on March
25, 2016. Pl.'s Mot. for Fees, Ex. 5, ECF 30-5. Plaintiff now seeks an award of fees pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Defendant has no objection to the request. I have reviewed the record in the
The case was reassigned to me on October 26, 2016. ECF 28.
1 - ORDER
case, the motion, and the supporting materials including the award of benefits, the fee agreement
with counsel, and the recitation of counsel's hours and services. Applying the standards set by
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002), I find the requested fees reasonable.
I grant the motion  and award Plaintiff's counsel $20,191 in attorney's fees under 42
U.S.C. § 406(b). Previously, Judge Redden awarded Plaintiff attorney's fees in the amount of
$3,735.87 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. ECF 23. When
issuing the § 406(b) check for payment to Plaintiff’s attorney, the Commissioner is directed to
subtract the amount previously awarded under EAJA and send Plaintiff’s attorney the balance of
$16,455.13, less any applicable processing fees as allowed by statute. Any amount withheld after
all administrative and court attorney's fees are paid should be released to the claimant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Marco A. Hernandez
United States District Judge
2 - ORDER
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?