Guaylupo v. Commsissioner of Social Security
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:21-cv-03993
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Guaylupo v. Commissioner: Judge Netburn ordered a response to counsel’s motion for Social Security attorney’s fees.
Johnny Guaylupo and his counsel, who sought attorney’s fees, and the Commissioner of Social Security, who was ordered to respond.
What happened
In Guaylupo v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court had previously sent the denial-of-benefits case back to the Social Security Commissioner for further review. The court also approved an agreement awarding Guaylupo $6,200 in fees under a federal law that helps parties recover litigation costs from the government.
After Guaylupo received retroactive benefits, his lawyer asked the court to approve additional fees under a law allowing fees of up to 25% of past-due benefits. The opinion does not decide how much, if anything, the lawyer should receive.
Judge Sarah Netburn ordered the Commissioner to respond to the fee request, including whether the requested fees would be an improper windfall. The order therefore requires a response but does not grant or deny the fee motion.
The detailed version
- Guaylupo v. Commsissioner of Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-03993
- Sarah Netburn
- Sept. 20, 2023
Background
Johnny Guaylupo brought the case under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which allows judicial review of a denial of Social Security benefits. The court had remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Social Security for further review. It also approved a stipulation and agreement awarding Guaylupo $6,200 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal statute commonly called the EAJA.
After the remand, Guaylupo received retroactive benefits from the Social Security Administration. On September 18, 2023, his counsel filed a motion seeking attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). That provision permits a court to approve a reasonable fee of no more than 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits.
Order
The court ordered the Commissioner to respond to the § 406(b) fee motion. The court explained that the Commissioner has a unique role and expertise concerning this issue and specifically directed the Commissioner to address whether the requested fees would amount to an impermissible windfall. The opinion does not state the amount of fees requested and does not rule on whether any § 406(b) fees should be awarded.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.