Palazzolo v. Berryhill
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:18-cv-01097-VSB-JLC
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Palazzolo v. Berryhill, Judge Broderick adopted a recommendation granting Palazzolo’s motion for Social Security attorneys’ fees.
Peter Palazzolo and his attorneys, whose motion for attorneys’ fees was granted; the Commissioner of Social Security was the opposing party.
What happened
Peter Palazzolo challenged a Social Security disability or supplemental security income decision in federal court. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings in 2018.
After the remand, Palazzolo asked for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Magistrate Judge James L. Cott recommended granting that motion, and neither party objected.
Judge Broderick reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment under the recommendation’s terms and close the fee motion.
The detailed version
- Palazzolo v. Berryhill · No. 1:18-cv-01097-VSB-JLC
- Vernon Broderick
- Apr. 17, 2023
Background
Peter Palazzolo filed a federal complaint seeking review of a Social Security disability or supplemental security income decision. He later moved for judgment on the pleadings, but the parties agreed to remand the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for additional administrative proceedings. The court endorsed that agreement, and the Clerk entered judgment remanding the case on December 3, 2018.
Fee Motion
On August 7, 2020, Palazzolo moved for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Magistrate Judge James L. Cott issued a Report and Recommendation stating that the motion should be granted. Neither party filed objections or requested more time to object.
Court’s Review and Ruling
Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. Judge Broderick found no clear error and adopted the Report. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment according to the Report’s terms and close the fee motion. The opinion does not state the amount of fees in the text provided.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.