Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 14, 2022

Rodriguez v. Berryhill

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:18-cv-11402-JPO
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In Rodriguez v. Berryhill, Judge Oetken granted attorney Valerie Jane Crown’s request for $41,773.50 in Social Security fees.

Who this affects

Attorney Valerie Jane Crown receives the approved fee award, and Alfonso Rodriguez must receive the $8,000 refund from the earlier Equal Access to Justice Act fee award.

What happened

In Rodriguez v. Berryhill, attorney Valerie Jane Crown asked the court to approve $41,773.50 for representing Alfonso Rodriguez in his claim for Social Security benefits.

The fee agreement provided for 25 percent of Rodriguez’s past-due benefits, which totaled $214,606. The court found that Crown obtained a fully favorable, uncontested decision, did not cause delay, and sought a reasonable fee rather than an improper windfall.

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted the fee request. After receiving the award, Crown must refund $8,000 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act directly to Rodriguez.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rodriguez v. Berryhill · No. 1:18-cv-11402-JPO
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Oct. 14, 2022

Background

Valerie Jane Crown, attorney for Alfonso Rodriguez, petitioned the court for approval of $41,773.50 in attorney’s fees for representing Rodriguez in his claim for Title II Social Security benefits. The Social Security Act permits a court to award a reasonable fee of up to 25 percent of a claimant’s past-due benefits for representation before the court.

The fee agreement stated that Crown would receive 25 percent of Rodriguez’s past-due benefits. The amount of those benefits was determined to be $214,606.00.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied three factors for evaluating whether the requested fee was reasonable: the quality of the attorney’s representation and the result achieved, whether the attorney caused delay, and whether the benefits were large compared with the time spent so that the fee would be an improper windfall.

The court found that all three factors supported the request. Crown obtained a fully favorable and uncontested decision from the Social Security Administration, was not responsible for delay, and sought a de facto hourly rate of $1,108.05, which the court found was within the typical range for this type of matter.

Ruling

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted the motion for $41,773.50 in attorney’s fees. After receiving that amount, Crown must refund the previously awarded $8,000.00 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act directly to Rodriguez. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 38.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.