Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 25, 2022

McDonald v. Colvin

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:13-cv-06903-PGG-SDA
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Social SecurityFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In McDonald v. Colvin, Judge Gardephe adopted a recommendation and granted counsel’s fee motion for $1,373.20.

Who this affects

The ruling awarded $1,373.20 in attorney’s fees to Lashawn S. McDonald’s counsel and determined the amount payable under the fee request; the opinion does not state any further effect on McDonald’s past-due benefits.

What happened

In McDonald v. Colvin, Lashawn S. McDonald challenged the denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits. After the case was sent back for further administrative proceedings, McDonald received $46,496 in past-due benefits, and counsel sought $5,624 in fees under a law governing fees in Social Security cases.

The Commissioner argued that the requested amount would be an unreasonable windfall for 4.5 hours of work. A magistrate judge recommended awarding $2,700 based on a $600 hourly rate, then deducting $1,326.80 connected to an earlier fee request under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Neither side objected to that recommendation.

Judge Paul G. Gardephe found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in its entirety, and granted the motion for attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,373.20.

The detailed version

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

Case
McDonald v. Colvin · No. 1:13-cv-06903-PGG-SDA
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
Jan. 25, 2022

Background

Lashawn S. McDonald brought this action against the Commissioner of Social Security after the Commissioner denied McDonald’s application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. The parties later stipulated to sending the matter back to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings.

After the remand, McDonald was awarded $46,496 in past-due benefits. McDonald and counsel had a contingency-fee agreement under which counsel would receive 25 percent of any past-due benefits. Counsel sought $5,624 in attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). That amount reflected a reduction from the 25-percent figure because another lawyer had received $6,000 for representing McDonald at a later administrative hearing.

Counsel had earlier sought $1,326.80 under the Equal Access to Justice Act, but withdrew that motion after concluding that only 2.4 hours had been properly recorded. The Commissioner opposed the later fee request, arguing that $5,624 for 6.9 reported hours would be a windfall. The magistrate judge determined that 2.4 of those hours concerned the withdrawn fee motion, leaving 4.5 hours spent on the case itself.

Recommendation and review

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended an effective hourly rate of $600 for the 4.5 hours of work, producing a fee of $2,700. He then recommended deducting the $1,326.80 sought in the withdrawn Equal Access to Justice Act motion. The resulting award was $1,373.20.

The parties had 14 days to object to the report and recommendation and were warned that failing to object would waive judicial review for purposes of appeal. Neither side objected. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and also considered it on the record, finding it thorough, well-reasoned, and free of clear error.

Disposition

Judge Paul G. Gardephe adopted Magistrate Judge Aaron’s report and recommendation in its entirety. The court granted Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,373.20 and awarded that amount to Plaintiff’s counsel.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.