Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 8, 2025

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Sarah Netburn
Docket
1:21-cv-00821
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Netburn granted counsel $22,760.50 in fees and ordered a refund of earlier Equal Access to Justice Act fees.

Who this affects

Kristal Marie Martinez and her lawyer. The lawyer receives the $22,760.50 award, while Martinez must receive a direct refund of the previously awarded $8,754.00 EAJA fees.

What happened

In Kristal Marie Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security, Martinez’s case was remanded for further review after she challenged the denial of Social Security benefits. The court had previously approved $8,754.00 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a law allowing fees in certain cases against the government.

After the remand, Martinez received $91,042.00 in past-due benefits. Her lawyer asked for $22,760.50 under a different fee law, which equals 25% of those benefits. The Commissioner said the requested effective hourly rate of $600.54 was reasonable.

Judge Sarah Netburn granted the requested $22,760.50 fee award. The court also directed Martinez’s lawyer to refund Martinez the previously awarded $8,754.00 Equal Access to Justice Act fees after receiving the new award.

The detailed version

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

Case
Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-00821
Judge
Sarah Netburn
Date
Apr. 8, 2025

Background

Kristal Marie Martinez brought the case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to challenge the denial of Social Security benefits. The court had remanded the matter for further review by the Commissioner of Social Security and had approved a stipulation awarding Martinez’s lawyer $8,754.00 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

After the remand, the Social Security Administration awarded Martinez $91,042.00 in retroactive benefits. On February 7, 2025, her lawyer timely asked the court for $22,760.50 in fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). That amount equals 25% of Martinez’s past-due benefits. Counsel reported billing 37.8 hours, producing an effective hourly rate of $600.54.

Court’s analysis

Section 406(b) allows a court to approve a reasonable fee of no more than 25% of a claimant’s past-due benefits. The court asked the Commissioner to address whether the requested fee would be an improper windfall. The Commissioner responded that the $600.54 effective hourly rate was reasonable and lower than recent awards in the district.

The court agreed. It found that counsel’s 37.8 hours were within the standard range for a Social Security case and noted that the work included reviewing an 897-page administrative record, researching, and filing a 25-page brief.

Ruling

Judge Sarah Netburn determined that the requested award was reasonable and granted attorney’s fees in the amount of $22,760.50. The award represents 25% of Martinez’s past-due benefits. Because Martinez had also received the earlier $8,754.00 EAJA award, the court directed her lawyer to refund that earlier fee directly to Martinez upon receiving the § 406(b) award.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.