Goodwine v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Filing
46
ORDER granting 43 Motion for Attorney Fees per Rule 406b; details set forth in order. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 8/19/2014.(eric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
TEDDY GOODWINE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No.: 3:12-cv-2107 DCN
ORDER
The above-referenced Social Security case is before this court upon the plaintiff’s petition
for attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §406(b)(1). Plaintiff filed this petition on July 31, 2014.
Because these fees are paid from the claimant’s benefits rather than from agency funds, defendant
is not a party to §406(b) fee awards. In this case, defendant filed a response stating that she had no
objection to the motion. In addition, plaintiff’s attorney filed an earlier motion for attorneys fees
under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), and was awarded a total of $9,918.58 in attorney’s
fees on April 11, 2014. If a plaintiff’s attorney is awarded attorney’s fees under both EAJA and 42
U.S.C. §406(b), he is obligated to refund the lesser of the two fees to the plaintiff to the extent that
they represent payment for identical services.
Accordingly, it appears from the record and memoranda filed that the plaintiff’s petition for
attorney fees should be awarded in the amount of $54,594.73 under the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. Section 406(b)(1).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for attorneys fees is hereby
GRANTED in the amount of $54,594.73.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s attorney refund $9,918.58 to plaintiff upon
receipt of attorney’s fees awarded under 42 U.S.C. §406(b)(1).
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
David C. Norton
United States District Judge
August 19, 2014
Charleston, South Carolina
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?