Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 27, 2023

Colon v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Katharine Parker
Docket
1:19-cv-02880-KHP
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In Colon v. Commissioner, Judge Parker granted counsel’s Social Security fee motion for $18,249.79, requiring a refund of earlier EAJA fees.

Who this affects

The ruling affects Ana Ysabel Colon and her attorney, Howard D. Olinsky. It authorizes payment of $18,249.79 from Colon’s past-due Social Security benefits and requires counsel to refund the earlier Equal Access to Justice Act attorney-fee payment.

What happened

In Colon v. Commissioner of Social Security, Ana Ysabel Colon’s lawyer represented her in challenging the denial of Disability Insurance Benefits. Colon ultimately prevailed, and the Social Security Administration later determined that she was owed $72,999 in past-due benefits. Her representation agreement provided for a fee of 25% of past-due benefits.

The lawyer asked the court to approve $18,249.79 in fees under the Social Security Act. The court found that the request was within the 25% limit, that there was no fraud or overreaching, and that the fee was not an improper windfall. The lawyer had recorded 40.6 hours of work, and he agreed to return the smaller fee previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the motion and authorized the $18,249.79 fee award. After receiving that payment, counsel must refund Colon the attorney’s fees previously paid under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The detailed version

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

Case
Colon v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-02880-KHP
Judge
Katharine Parker
Date
Feb. 27, 2023

Background

Ana Ysabel Colon’s counsel, Howard D. Olinsky, represented her in this federal action seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Disability Insurance Benefits. The representation agreement provided that counsel would receive 25% of any past-due benefits awarded to Colon.

Colon prevailed in the case and obtained a remand to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. After the remand, the agency advised on October 21, 2022, that Colon was due benefits, including $72,999 in past-due benefits. The agency withheld $18,249.78 from those benefits for a possible attorney-fee request under Section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, which permits a court to authorize reasonable fees of up to 25% of past-due benefits when a disability claimant succeeds in federal court.

Counsel had previously received $6,983.20 in attorney’s fees and $16.80 in expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a statute that can require the government to pay fees when its position in litigation was not substantially justified. Counsel stated that he would refund that earlier attorney-fee payment to Colon if the court approved the Section 206(b) request.

Fee Request and Analysis

Counsel requested $18,249.79 under Section 206(b) and submitted records showing 40.6 hours of work, including 33.1 attorney hours and 7.5 paralegal hours. Using a $100 hourly rate for the paralegal work, the effective attorney hourly rate was $528.69.

The court evaluated whether the requested fee was reasonable by considering the 25% statutory cap, whether the fee agreement involved fraud or overreaching, and whether the award would give counsel an improper windfall. The court found that the request was within the cap and that there was no evidence of fraud or overreaching. It also found no windfall because counsel was experienced, the effective hourly rate was within the range generally approved for similar cases, the hours were reasonable and efficient, Colon obtained a favorable benefits decision, and the case carried a risk that no benefits would be recovered.

Disposition

The court granted counsel’s motion and authorized an attorney-fee award of $18,249.79 under Section 206(b). Upon receiving the payment, counsel must refund Colon the attorney’s fees previously received under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 31.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.