Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 18, 2023

Ward v. Saul

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:20-cv-05412
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In Ward v. Kijakazi, Judge Gardephe granted Ward’s motion for $17,770.75 in attorney’s fees after adopting an unchallenged recommendation.

Who this affects

Troy A. Ward received an award of $17,770.75 in attorney’s fees, subject to returning any amount received under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Commissioner of Social Security and the Social Security Administration were involved in the fee and benefits proceedings.

What happened

In Ward v. Kijakazi, Troy A. Ward challenged the denial of his Social Security benefits. The parties later agreed that the denial should be reversed and that the case should return to the agency for further proceedings. Ward ultimately received past-due benefits, from which the agency withheld $17,770.75 to pay his representative.

Ward asked the court to approve that $17,770.75 fee under the federal law governing fees for attorneys who represent Social Security claimants in court. Magistrate Judge Cott recommended granting the request. Neither party objected to the recommendation.

Judge Gardephe reviewed the recommendation for obvious error, found none, adopted it in full, and granted Ward’s motion. The court awarded $17,770.75 in attorney’s fees, directed Ward to return any amount previously received under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and closed the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ward v. Saul · No. 1:20-cv-05412
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
Aug. 18, 2023

Background

Troy A. Ward brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to obtain judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying his application for benefits. The parties agreed that the decision should be reversed and that the case should be sent back for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of § 405(g). The court approved that agreement, and judgment was entered.

The parties later agreed that Ward was entitled to $7,292.53 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Social Security Administration then notified Ward that he was entitled to past-due benefits and had withheld $17,770.75 from those benefits to pay his representative.

Attorney’s-Fee Motion

Ward moved for approval of $17,770.75 in attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1), based on 35.14 hours of work performed in the case. Magistrate Judge Cott issued a report and recommendation recommending that the motion be granted.

Neither party filed objections. Because the parties had received notice that failing to object would waive judicial review, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record rather than conducting a fresh review of the disputed issues.

Ruling

Judge Gardephe found the recommendation thorough, well reasoned, and free of clear error. The court adopted the recommendation in its entirety and granted Ward’s motion for attorney’s fees. It awarded $17,770.75 and directed Ward to return any amount he had received under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.

Classification Basis

This is a procedural order because it decided an ancillary attorney’s-fee request rather than the underlying Social Security benefits question.

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.