You're viewing Docket Item 55 from the case George v. Barnhart. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 5:06-cv-00960-C Document 55 Filed 07/30/13 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

GORDON L. GEORGE

Plaintiff,

vs.

CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Case Number CIV-06-960-C
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s application for disability insurance benefits was denied by the Social Security

Administration. Plaintiff then filed the present action seeking review of the Agency’s decision. In

December 2011, the Tenth Circuit reversed the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance

benefits, and remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On

April 8, 2013, the Commissioner issued the Notice of Award, awarding Plaintiff $71,041.00 in back

benefits. By prior Order the Court had denied Plaintiff EAJA fees. Plaintiff’s counsel now seeks

an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).

The contingent fee agreement executed between Plaintiff and his counsel indicated that if

Plaintiff were awarded benefits he would pay counsel a fee equal to 25% of the past due award.

Now that the Notice of Benefit has been issued, counsel seeks an award of attorney fees. By prior

Order, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, reopening the case so that

this motion for attorney fees could be timely filed. Plaintiff’s counsel seeks a fee of $17,760.25.

Section 406(b)(1)(A) states:

Case 5:06-cv-00960-C Document 55 Filed 07/30/13 Page 2 of 2

Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this
subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court may
determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation,
not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant
is entitled by reason of such judgment . . . .

Where a contingent fee agreement is in place, the Court must examine the reasonableness of its

terms and reduce an award as appropriate “based on the character of the representation and the

results the representative achieved.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 808 (2002). In support

of the motion, counsel has attached a time report demonstrating that counsel expended

approximately 107.10 hours of attorney time in performing the work before the Court. After

considering the extent of work performed, the result obtained, and the fee award sought, the Court

finds the amount to be a reasonable fee for the work performed. Indeed, the benefits awarded to

Plaintiff certainly justify the amount of time spent by the firm handling the case and the evidence

before the Court offers nothing to suggest that the character of the representation or the results

achieved were in any way deficient.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 USC § 406(b) (Dkt. No.

51) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel is awarded a fee in the amount of $17,760.25. Pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 406(b), this amount shall be paid to Timothy M. White.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of July, 2013.



2