Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 5, 2022

Laden v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:17-cv-10050
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Social SecurityFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Laden v. Commissioner, Judge Roman adopted the recommendation and awarded counsel $54,184.78 in Social Security attorney’s fees.

Who this affects

Shane Laden and his attorney, Daniel A. Osborn; the order awarded Osborn’s counsel $54,184.78 from the past-due benefits withheld for a possible fee payment.

What happened

Laden v. Commissioner of Social Security began when Shane Laden challenged the denial of his application for disability benefits. The case was remanded to the Social Security Administration, which later found Laden disabled and entitled to benefits.

Laden’s lawyer, Daniel A. Osborn, requested $54,184.78 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). A magistrate judge recommended granting the request, and no party objected.

Judge Nelson S. Roman reviewed the recommendation for clear error, adopted it in its entirety, and awarded counsel $54,184.78, representing 25 percent of Laden’s past-due benefits.

The detailed version

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

Case
Laden v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:17-cv-10050
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Dec. 5, 2022

Background

Shane Laden filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) challenging the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for Disability Insurance Benefits. An administrative law judge had found that Laden was not entitled to benefits, and the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council denied review.

The parties later agreed to remand the case to the Social Security Administration. After a second hearing, an administrative law judge found Laden disabled and entitled to benefits. The Social Security Administration issued a notice stating that it had withheld 25 percent of Laden’s past-due benefits—$54,184.78—for a possible attorney’s-fee request.

Fee Request and Report

Laden’s attorney, Daniel A. Osborn of Osborn Law, P.C., moved for $54,184.78 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The fee agreement provided that Laden would pay the greater of 25 percent of any past-due benefits or the amount obtained under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and that counsel would refund the smaller fee amount if fees were awarded under § 406(b).

Magistrate Judge Krause recommended granting the motion. The recommendation considered whether the application was timely and whether the requested fee was reasonable, including whether the agreement was capped at 25 percent, whether there was evidence of fraud or overreaching, and whether the requested amount would be an improper windfall. The Commissioner took no position, and neither party filed an objection.

Court’s Ruling

Because there were no timely objections, Judge Nelson S. Roman reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in its entirety, and determined that counsel was entitled to recover $54,184.78 as reasonable attorney’s fees. The clerk was directed to terminate the fee motion.

Disposition

The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. Plaintiff’s counsel was awarded $54,184.78 in attorney’s fees.

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.