Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 12, 2024

Taveras v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Katharine Parker
Docket
1:22-cv-10825
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In Taveras v. Commissioner, Judge Parker approved $14,137.75 in attorney’s fees from past-due benefits, requiring counsel to refund $9,250.

Who this affects

Elvira Taveras, her attorneys, and the Social Security Administration were affected. Counsel received authorization for $14,137.75 from withheld past-due benefits and had to refund $9,250 to Taveras.

What happened

In Taveras v. Commissioner of Social Security, Elvira Taveras’s lawyers requested $14,137.75—25% of the $56,551 in past-due benefits awarded after the case was sent back for further proceedings. Taveras had agreed to a 25% contingency fee, and the Commissioner did not oppose the request.

The court found the fee request reasonable because counsel obtained a favorable result, did not unreasonably delay the case, and spent 38.7 hours on work that was not a windfall. The court also rejected the Commissioner’s request to merely authorize the fee rather than direct payment. It granted the request and ordered payment from the amount withheld from Taveras’s benefits.

Judge Katharine H. Parker also ordered counsel to return $9,250 to Taveras after receiving the attorney’s fee, because that was the smaller fee previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Taveras v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:22-cv-10825
Judge
Katharine Parker
Date
Aug. 12, 2024

Background

Elvira Taveras filed the Social Security case without a lawyer. Counsel from the Law Office of Charles E. Binder and Harry, LLP later appeared for her. The court previously sent the case back, and the parties ultimately agreed to a remand solely to calculate benefits. After remand, the Commissioner awarded Taveras $56,551 in past-due benefits for December 2018 through April 2024.

Taveras’s lawyers sought $14,137.75 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). That statute permits a court to approve a reasonable attorney’s fee of up to 25% of a claimant’s past-due benefits for work performed in federal court. Taveras had agreed to pay counsel 25% of any past-due benefits obtained. The Commissioner did not support or oppose the requested amount but asked the court to authorize the fee rather than direct the Commissioner to pay it.

Reasonableness of the Fee

The court found the request timely because it was filed within 14 days after the notice of the benefits award. It also found the requested amount reasonable. Counsel achieved a favorable result, including the benefits award, and the court found no indication of unreasonable delay, fraud, overreaching, or dissatisfaction with the representation.

Counsel had worked 38.7 hours and requested $14,137.75, which produced an effective rate of $365.32 per hour. The court concluded that this rate was within a reasonable range and that the fee was not an improper windfall. The court also noted that counsel had filed a detailed memorandum supporting Taveras’s motion and negotiated the remand for benefits calculation.

Equal Access to Justice Act Offset

Taveras’s counsel had previously received $9,250 under the Equal Access to Justice Act. When a claimant’s attorney receives fees under both that law and Section 406(b), the attorney must return the smaller fee to the claimant. Because $9,250 was smaller than $14,137.75, the court ordered counsel to return $9,250 to Taveras after receiving the Section 406(b) fee.

Disposition

The court granted counsel’s request for an award. It ordered the Social Security Administration to pay counsel $14,137.75 from the amount withheld from Taveras’s past-due benefits and ordered counsel to pay Taveras the $9,250 previously received under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Judge Katharine H. Parker rejected the Commissioner’s request for different payment language.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.