Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
35
ORDER granting 28 Motion for Attorney Fees, awarding $7,300.00 in fees. Signed by Honorable Margaret B. Seymour on 10/16/2017.(bshr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
O’Dell Bill Thomas,
)
) C/A No. 1:16-2774-MBS
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ORDER
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner )
of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
Plaintiff O’Dell Bill Thomas filed the within action on August 9, 2016, seeking judicial
review of a final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claims
for supplemental security income benefits. By order filed July 17, 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 August 16, 2017. Counsel
moves for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $6,966.63 to attorney Carol Avard and $1,385.46 to
attorney Carole Dennison, for a total of $8,352.09. On October 10, 2017, the Commissioner filed
a stipulation informing the court that the parties had reached agreement to pay counsel $7,300.00 in
attorneys’ fees. The stipulation is without prejudice to the rights of Plaintiff’s counsel to seek Social
Security Act attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406.
Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under the EAJA (ECF No. 28) is granted in the amount
of $7,300.00, 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
October 16, 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?