Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 30, 2024

Salazar v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:20-cv-09613
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In Salazar v. Commissioner, Judge Carter authorized counsel’s $12,520 attorney-fee request under Social Security law and directed any required refund to Salazar.

Who this affects

Salazar and Salazar’s attorney, whose requested fee award was authorized; the government was not required to pay the fee under the ruling described in the opinion.

What happened

In Salazar v. Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiff’s lawyer asked the court for attorney’s fees under a federal Social Security law. The request was for $12,520, equal to 25% of the plaintiff’s retroactive benefits.

The government did not support or oppose the request based on its own review of whether the amount was reasonable. The opinion says counsel had represented the plaintiff through several administrative hearings and appeals, and neither the plaintiff nor the government objected to the fees.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. authorized the requested fees. He also directed counsel to refund the plaintiff any fees previously received under the Equal Access to Justice Act if those fees were less than the amount awarded in this order. The court directed the Clerk to close the fee motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Salazar v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-09613
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Aug. 30, 2024

Background

The court considered Salazar’s lawyer’s motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), which allows a court to award fees from retroactive Social Security benefits. Counsel requested the statutory maximum of 25% of Salazar’s retroactive benefits, totaling $12,520.

The government neither supported nor opposed the request based on its own analysis of whether the fee was reasonable. The opinion identifies the relevant factors as counsel’s ability and expertise, the nature and length of counsel’s relationship with the claimant, the claimant’s satisfaction with the representation, and the uncertainty of receiving benefits.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that counsel were experts in Social Security law and had represented Salazar over an extended period through several administrative hearings and appeals. The opinion states that neither Salazar nor the government’s lawyer expressed dissatisfaction with counsel’s representation or objected to the requested fees.

Ruling

The court authorized counsel’s requested fees of $12,520. It directed counsel to refund Salazar any fees previously received under the Equal Access to Justice Act if those fees were less than the fees awarded in this order. The Clerk was directed to terminate Salazar’s motion for attorney’s fees at ECF No. 34.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.