Stevens v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER granting 36 Motion for Attorney Fees per Rule 406b, awarding fees in the amount of $17,246.25. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 05/30/2017.(bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Thomas Christopher Stevens,
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security
Civil Action No. 1:15-2823-BHH
On May 12, 2017, W. Daniel Mayes (“Mayes”), counsel for Plaintiff Thomas
Christopher Stevens (“Plaintiff”), filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 406(b). (ECF No. 36.) In the motion, Mayes requests reimbursement for representation
provided in the above-referenced case in the amount of $17,246.25. 1
As required by 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), the amount requested by counsel is not greater
than twenty-five percent (25%) of the past-due benefits recovered by Plaintiff. Counsel for
the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) filed a response to the
motion on May 19, 2017, in which she states that the Commissioner does not oppose an
award of attorney’ fees under § 406(b). (ECF No. 37.) The Court has reviewed the motion
and exhibits and finds that counsel’s request for fees is reasonable.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 36)
pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U .S.C. § 406(b), is GRANTED in the amount of
Plaintiff was awarded $52,423.00 in back-due benefits, and his child was awarded $16,562.00, of
which $17,246.25 was withheld for attorney’s fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
May 30, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina
Plaintiff received $3,369.19 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d). (ECF No. 35.) As Plaintiff's attorney concedes in his memorandum (ECF No. 36-1), he must refund
to Plaintiff the EAJA fees already paid. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002) (noting that fees
may be awarded under both § 406(b) and EAJA but that the claimant’s attorney must refund to the claimant
the amount of the smaller fee) (internal quotations and citation omitted); Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2528
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?