Grall v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 25

ORDER granting 21 motion for attorney's fees in the total amount of $6,420.01. Signed by Honorable Margaret B. Seymour on 12/14/2017. (bgoo)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Christopher David Grall, ) ) C/A No. 6:16-2972-MBS Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ORDER Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner ) of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) Plaintiff Christopher David Grall filed the within action on August 30, 2016, seeking judicial review of a final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claims for social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. By order filed October 16, 2017, the case was reversed pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration. This matter now is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, which motion was filed November 14, 2017. Counsel moves for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $7,685.49 plus $420.01 in costs and expenses. On November 27,2 017, the Commissioner filed a stipulation informing the court that the parties had reached agreement to pay counsel $6,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and $420.01 in costs. The stipulation is without prejudice to the rights of Plaintiff’s counsel to seek Social Security Act attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s under the EAJA (ECF No. 21) is granted in the total amount of $6,420.01 ($6,000.00 fees plus $420.01 costs), to be to be paid in accordance with the Commissioner’s procedures set forth in the stipulation. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Margaret B. Seymour Senior United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina December 14, 2017 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?