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, )

Download PDF
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?