Amy R. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Full title: AMY R., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Dec 22, 2021

8:20-CV-1520 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2021)

Opinion

8:20-CV-1520

12-22-2021

AMY R., Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

OLINSKY LAW GROUP OF COUNSEL: HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OF COUNSEL: DANIEL S. TARABELLI, ESQ. Ass't United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant

DAVID N. HURD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

OLINSKY LAW GROUP

OF COUNSEL: HOWARD D. OLINSKY, ESQ.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

OF COUNSEL: DANIEL S. TARABELLI, ESQ.

Ass't United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant

ORDER ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

DAVID N. HURD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On December 9, 2020, plaintiff Amy R.^[1] (“plaintiff”) filed this action seeking review of a final decision by defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “defendant”) denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under the Social Security Act (the “Act”). Dkt. No. 1.

[1] In accordance with a May 1, 2018 memorandum issued by the Judicial Conference's Committee on Court Administration and Case Management and adopted as local practice in this District, only claimant's first name and last initial will be mentioned in this opinion.

After plaintiff filed her opening brief, Dkt. No. 12, the Commissioner moved for the entry of a judgment remanding the matter for further administrative proceedings, Dkt. No. 15. This Court “so ordered” defendant's request for remand on September 10, 2021. Dkt. No. 16. A judgment in plaintiff's favor was entered later that day. Dkt. No. 17.

On December 6, 2021, plaintiff moved for an award of attorney's fees as a “prevailing party” under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), which shifts litigation fees to a government defendant when certain conditions are met. Dkt. No. 18. In response, the Commissioner has stated that she “has no objection to plaintiff's request for . . . attorney fees.” Dkt. No. 19.

Upon review of the submissions, plaintiff's fee application will be granted. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 301 (1993) (explaining that only a sentence four remand amounts to the kind of “final judgment” that permits the shifting of fees under the EAJA).

Therefore, it is

ORDERED that

1. Plaintiffs motion for attorney's fees is GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiff is awarded a fee in the amount of $5,427.51.

IT IS SO ORDERED.