Pellicano v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:18-cv-04862
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pellicano v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Netburn ordered the Commissioner to respond to counsel’s fee request after the case was remanded and benefits were paid.
Barbara Pellicano, her counsel, and the Commissioner of Social Security; the order concerns counsel’s request for attorney’s fees from Pellicano’s past-due benefits.
What happened
Pellicano v. Commissioner of Social Security involved Barbara Pellicano’s request for review of a denial of Social Security benefits. The parties agreed to send the case back to the Commissioner for further review, and Pellicano later received retroactive benefits.
After the remand, Pellicano’s lawyer asked the court to approve attorney’s fees under a law allowing fees of up to 25 percent of past-due benefits. The court had previously approved $6,550 in fees under a different federal law.
Judge Sarah Netburn ordered the Commissioner to respond to the new fee request, including whether the requested amount would be an improper windfall. The order did not grant or deny the fee request.
The detailed version
- Pellicano v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:18-cv-04862
- Sarah Netburn
- Feb. 22, 2021
Background
Barbara Pellicano filed the case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to challenge the denial of Social Security benefits. The court approved the parties’ agreement to remand the matter to the Commissioner for further review. The court later approved an award of $6,550 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Following the remand, Pellicano received retroactive benefits from the Social Security Administration.
Fee Motion
Pellicano’s counsel filed a motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). That law allows a court to approve a reasonable fee of no more than 25 percent of the claimant’s past-due benefits. The opinion states that the fee motion was filed on February 19, 2021.
Order
Judge Sarah Netburn ordered the Commissioner to respond to the fee motion because of the Commissioner’s role and expertise concerning these fees. The court specifically directed the Commissioner to address whether the requested fees would amount to an impermissible windfall. The order did not decide whether to grant or deny the fee motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.