Cook v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER granting 28 Motion for Attorney Fees per Rule 406b Signed by Honorable Margaret B Seymour on 8/7/2017.(abuc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Michael D. Cook,
) C/A No. 6:15-2431-MBS
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, )
Social Security Administration,
On June 16, 2015, Plaintiff Michael D. Cook brought this action to obtain judicial review of
a final decision of Defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s claims for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On
July 28, 2016, the court remanded the Commissioner’s decision pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g)
for further administrative proceedings. By order filed November 9, 2016, the court awarded attorney’s
fees and expenses in the amount of $3,432.38 to Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to the Equal Access to
Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
This matter now is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees filed June 16, 2017.
Counsel moves for an order awarding an attorney’s fee of $27,063.50 under the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. § 406(b).1 On July 19, 2017, the Commissioner filed a response informing the court that
she has no objection to Plaintiff’s motion for fees. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) be granted in
The fee requested constitutes 25% of the past due benefits awarded to Plaintiff, in accordance with
the fee agreement between Plaintiff and counsel and as permitted by 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Plaintiff
received past benefits in the amount of $108,254.00.
the amount of $27,063.50. Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that, once the fees requested in this case are
approved, he will refund to Plaintiff the $3,432.38 previously paid to him.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Margaret B. Seymour
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
August 1, 2017
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?