welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, E.D. New York
  4. 2018
  5. Childs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 15-CV-05991 (FB). (2018)

Childs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 15-CV-05991 (FB). (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. New York Number: infdco20181012e19 Visitors: 13
Filed: Oct. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 11, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FREDERIC BLOCK , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff's attorney, Louis Burko, seeks a fee award of $41,426.11 for the successful representation of his client, Jeffrey Childs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 406(b). The amount sought reflects an agreed-upon contingent fee of 25%, less fees recovered from the Commissioner under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). In Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002), the Court instructed district courts to review requested fee
More

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff's attorney, Louis Burko, seeks a fee award of $41,426.11 for the successful representation of his client, Jeffrey Childs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The amount sought reflects an agreed-upon contingent fee of 25%, less fees recovered from the Commissioner under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA").

In Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002), the Court instructed district courts to review requested fee awards under § 406(b) for "reasonableness." This standard was also articulated by the Second Circuit in Wells v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 367 (2d Cir. 1990) as a three-factor test: (1) whether the requested amount exceeds the 25% statutory cap imposed by § 406(b), (2) whether there was fraud or overreaching in the making of the agreement, and (3) whether the requested amount results in a windfall for the attorney. Id. at 372.

As noted, the requested amount conforms to the 25% statutory cap. The record does not reflect fraud or overreaching in the making of the agreement, nor of a windfall to Burko. This case went through two rounds of litigation in the federal courts, and Childs was ultimately well-served by Burko's representation, receiving both $219,848.00 in past-due and ongoing benefits for life. The Court thus finds that the fee award is reasonable. See also Heffernan v. Astrue, 87 F.Supp.3d 351, 355 (E.D.N.Y.) (citing cases).1

For the foregoing reasons, the fee request is granted.

SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The request is also timely. It was filed on April 19, 2018, approximately a month after March 21, 2018, the date that the Commissioner's Notice of Award was received. There is disagreement among the circuit courts as to the standard for timeliness for attorney's fee requests in Social Security cases. The Tenth Circuit uses a reasonableness standard pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). See McGraw v. Barnhart, 450 F.3d 493, 505 (10th Cir. 2006). The Third, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits have imposed a 14-day deadline pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B) (equitably tolled from the date the Notice of Award is received). See Walker v. Astrue, 593 F.3d 274, 280 (3d Cir. 2010); Bergen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 454 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2006); Pierce v. Barnhart, 440 F.3d 657, 663 (5th Cir. 2006). The Second Circuit has not yet examined the question, but many courts in the circuit, including this Court, have employed the reasonableness standard. See, e.g, George v. Astrue, 04-CV-1545, 2009 WL 197054 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2009) (Block, J.) (20 days). Although some judges have disagreed, see, e.g., Sinkler v. Berryhill, 304 F.Supp.3d 448, 458 (W.D.N.Y. 2018) (Wolford, J.), this Court will continue employing the reasonableness standard until the Second Circuit rules on the issue.
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
15-CV-05991 (FB).
Counsels
  • Louis R. Burko
  • Matthew Mailloux
Cited By (1)
Similar Cases

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer