Milburne v. Bisignano
- John Koeltl
- 1:22-cv-03560
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Milburne v. Bisignano, Judge Aaron recommended awarding counsel $16,800.25 and requiring a $7,100 refund of earlier fees.
Nakesha Milburne and her attorney, Eddy Pierre Pierre. The recommendation would award counsel $16,800.25 from Milburne’s past-due benefits and require counsel to refund Milburne $7,100 in previously paid fees.
What happened
In Nakesha Milburne v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, attorney Eddy Pierre Pierre asked for $16,800.25 in fees from Milburne’s past-due Social Security benefits. The request was based on an agreement allowing fees of up to 25% of those benefits.
The report found that the request was filed two days late, but recommended extending the deadline because the delay resulted from law-office oversight and the motion was filed promptly after the mistake was discovered. It also found the requested fee reasonable because it was within the legal limit, the case resulted in a remand and later an award of benefits, and counsel spent 29.37 attorney hours on the case.
Judge Aaron recommended granting the fee motion, awarding $16,800.25, and requiring counsel to refund Milburne the $7,100 previously paid under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The recommendation remained subject to objections and review by Judge Koeltl.
The detailed version
- Milburne v. Bisignano · No. 1:22-cv-03560
- John Koeltl
- Oct. 4, 2025
Background
Nakesha Milburne’s attorney, Eddy Pierre Pierre, moved for attorney’s fees under Section 406(b) of the Social Security Act. Milburne’s written contingency-fee agreement allowed counsel to receive up to 25% of her past-due benefits if the litigation succeeded. The Social Security Administration stated that it was withholding $16,800.25, equal to 25% of those benefits, for approved attorney’s fees.
Counsel had previously received $7,100 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Social Security case had resulted in a remand to the agency for further proceedings. After the remand, an administrative law judge found that Milburne was disabled and entitled to benefits.
Timeliness
The report explained that fee motions under Section 406(b) generally must be filed within 14 days after notice of the benefits award, with the deadline potentially extended under equitable tolling or excusable neglect. The benefits notice was dated September 8, 2025, and counsel presumptively received it three days later. Counsel filed the fee motion on September 24, two days after the filing period had expired.
Counsel attributed the delay to a calendaring error and being out of the office. The report recommended extending the filing period because the motion was filed promptly after counsel learned of the oversight.
Reasonableness of the Fee
The report found the requested fee reasonable. It was within the statutory 25% cap, and the record contained no evidence or suggestion of fraud or overreaching. Counsel had reviewed an 889-page administrative record, filed a 26-page legal memorandum, obtained a remand, and ultimately achieved a favorable benefits result.
The report also found no indication that counsel caused unreasonable delay. Counsel and staff devoted a combined 36.96 hours to the case, including 29.37 attorney hours and 7.59 paralegal hours. The requested fee produced an effective hourly rate of $572.02, which the report found consistent with approved rates in similar cases and appropriately reflective of the risk involved in contingency representation.
Recommendation and Procedure
Judge Aaron recommended that the motion for attorney’s fees be granted, that counsel be awarded $16,800.25, and that counsel refund $7,100 directly to Milburne after receiving the Section 406(b) fee. The refund represents the smaller fee previously paid under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
This document is a report and recommendation to Judge John G. Koeltl, not the final ruling identified in the text. The parties were given 14 days after service to file objections; the report states that failure to object within that period would waive objections and prevent appellate review.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.