Batista v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:17-cv-01792
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Batista v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Netburn granted plaintiff’s counsel $6,855 in fees after the case was remanded.
The order affected Orquidia Batista’s lawyer by awarding $6,855 in attorney’s fees from the past-due Social Security benefits.
What happened
In Batista v. Commissioner of Social Security, Orquidia Batista sought court review of the denial of Social Security benefits. The parties agreed to send the case back for further proceedings, after which Batista received retroactive benefits.
Batista’s lawyer later asked the court to approve $6,855 in attorney’s fees. The Commissioner said the request was reasonable but noted that it was filed after the usual 14-day deadline and suggested that the court could deny or reduce the fee.
Judge Sarah Netburn found that the requested amount was reasonable and that the lawyer had shown a sufficient reason for the late filing. The court granted $6,855 in attorney’s fees, an amount not exceeding 25% of Batista’s past-due benefits.
The detailed version
- Batista v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:17-cv-01792
- Sarah Netburn
- Feb. 13, 2020
Background
On March 10, 2017, Orquidia Batista filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the denial of Social Security benefits. On December 4, 2017, the parties stipulated to remand the case for further proceedings. After the remand, Batista received retroactive benefits from the Social Security Administration.
Fee request
On August 5, 2019, Batista’s lawyer moved for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). That statute allows a court to approve a reasonable fee of no more than 25% of the past-due benefits awarded to the plaintiff. The court asked the Commissioner to respond because of the Commissioner’s role and expertise in this area.
The Commissioner responded that the fee request was reasonable but argued that the court should consider denying it or reducing it because the lawyer had not timely filed either a motion under the Equal Access to Justice Act or the § 406(b) request within the applicable 14-day periods. Batista’s lawyer filed a further letter explaining the late filing.
Ruling
Judge Sarah Netburn determined that the requested fee was reasonable and that Batista’s lawyer had shown good cause for missing the filing deadline. Relying on the rule that the 14-day period is not absolute and may be extended when circumstances warrant, the court granted attorney’s fees of $6,855. The court stated that this amount did not exceed 25% of the past-due benefits awarded to Batista.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.