Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 26, 2023

Jones v. Social Security

Judge
Stewart Aaron
Docket
1:21-cv-04156
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

Jones v. Social Security: Judge Aaron granted counsel’s motion for $7,600.75 in fees and required refund of the earlier $835.70 fee.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Natanya Jones and her counsel, Charles Binder. Binder receives $7,600.75 and must refund Jones $835.70 after receiving that award.

What happened

In Natanya Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security, Jones’s lawyer, Charles Binder, asked for attorney’s fees under a federal law governing fees in successful Social Security cases. The request sought $7,600.75, or 10.8% of Jones’s past-due benefits.

The court found that the request was timely and reasonable. It noted that counsel achieved an award of benefits, did not cause delay, had experience in Social Security cases, represented Jones for an extended period, and faced uncertainty about whether benefits would be awarded.

Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted the motion and awarded counsel $7,600.75. Because counsel had previously received an $835.70 fee under the Equal Access to Justice Act, the order requires counsel to promptly refund that amount to Jones after receiving the new fee.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jones v. Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-04156
Judge
Stewart Aaron
Date
Oct. 26, 2023

Background

On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel, Charles Binder, filed a petition for attorney’s fees under Section 406(b)(1) of the Social Security Act. The Commissioner of Social Security responded on October 25, 2023. The petition concerned fees for counsel’s successful representation of Jones in federal court and sought $7,600.75, equal to 10.8% of the past-due benefits awarded to Jones.

Timeliness and Reasonableness

The court found the petition timely. The notice of the Commissioner’s calculation of benefits was dated September 27, 2023, and the petition was filed on October 11, 2023. The court explained that a Section 406(b) fee petition should be filed within fourteen days after notice of the benefits calculation, with receipt presumed three days after mailing.

Section 406(b)(1)(A) permits a court to authorize a reasonable attorney’s fee of up to 25% of a disability claimant’s past-due benefits when the claimant succeeds in federal court. The court evaluates whether the requested contingent fee is reasonable by considering the quality and results of the representation, whether counsel caused delay, and whether the benefits are large compared with the time spent. The court also considers counsel’s skill and efficiency, the professional relationship with the claimant, the claimant’s satisfaction, and the uncertainty and effort involved in obtaining benefits.

The court found the requested fee reasonable and not a windfall. Counsel obtained an award of benefits, and the record did not show any problem with the representation or any delay caused by counsel. The court also noted counsel’s experience in Social Security cases, the extended period of representation, the absence of any reason to believe Jones was dissatisfied, and the prior denials at the agency level, which showed uncertainty about whether benefits would be awarded.

Earlier Fee and Disposition

Counsel acknowledged that he had to refund the $835.70 fee previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act. When an attorney receives fees under both the Equal Access to Justice Act and Section 406(b), the attorney must refund the smaller fee to the claimant.

Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted the motion for attorney’s fees. The order awarded Charles Binder $7,600.75 and required him, upon receiving that sum, to promptly refund Jones the $835.70 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.