Aquino v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:21-cv-10125
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Aquino v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Netburn ordered the Commissioner to respond to counsel’s fee request after remand.
Ramon Maria Aquino, his counsel, and the Commissioner of Social Security are affected by the order requiring a response to the requested attorney’s fees.
What happened
In Aquino v. Commissioner of Social Security, Ramon Maria Aquino challenged the denial of Social Security benefits, and the court remanded the matter for further review. The court had also approved $5,400 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
After the remand, Aquino received past-due benefits. His lawyer then asked the court to approve additional fees under a law allowing fees of up to 25 percent of past-due benefits.
The court did not decide whether to award those fees. Judge Sarah Netburn ordered the Commissioner to respond, including addressing whether the requested fees would be an impermissible windfall.
The detailed version
- Aquino v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-10125
- Sarah Netburn
- Dec. 20, 2024
Background
Ramon Maria Aquino brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to challenge the denial of Social Security benefits. The court remanded the matter for further review by the Commissioner of Social Security. The court also approved a stipulation awarding Aquino $5,400 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that can allow fee awards when a party litigates against the government.
Fee request
After the remand, Aquino received retroactive benefits from the Social Security Administration. On December 19, 2024, Aquino’s counsel moved for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). That provision allows a court to approve a reasonable fee of no more than 25 percent of the claimant’s past-due benefits.
Court’s action
The court ordered the Commissioner to respond to the fee motion because of the Commissioner’s expertise and role in these matters. In particular, the court directed the Commissioner to address whether the requested fees would amount to an impermissible windfall. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the fee motion; it only directs the Commissioner to respond.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.