Woods v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
ORDER granting 27 Motion for Attorney Fees per Rule 406b. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 3/7/2018.(gnan )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner
of Social Security Administration,
Civil Action No. 4: 16-738-RMG
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff s motion for approval of attorney's fees
under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (Dkt. No. 27). Plaintiff seeks approval of an attorney's fee for his
services on behalf of Plaintiff in federal court in the amount of $20,280.00, which represents
25% of the total back award obtained on behalf of Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 27-1). Plaintiff s contract
with his counsel provides for a 25% contingency fee. The Defendant has advised the Court that
she does not oppose approval of the attorney fee request of Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 29). Upon
receipt of the 406(b) fee award, Plaintiff s counsel is obligated to pay to her client the amount
previously awarded by the Court under EAJA if she has been paid the EAJA fee award. (Dkt.
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff s motion in light of the standards set forth in
Grisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 808 (2002). The Court finds that pursuant to the
Grisbrecht standards the proposed fee is reasonable and grants the Plaintiff s motion to approve
the fee in the amount of $20,280.00. Upon receipt of this award, Plaintiff s counsel is directed to
reimburse to Plaintiff $3,806.86 previously awarded under EAJA, assuming that amount has
already been paid to Plaintiff s counsel. (Dkt. No. 26).1
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Richard Mark er l
United States District Judge
March 7 ,2018
Charleston, South Carolina
The EAJA award was made by this Court on January 25, 2018. (Dkt. No. 26). Ifthe
Commissioner has not yet paid this award, Plaintiff s counsel would obviously have no
obligation to pay the EAJA award back to Plaintiff.
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?