Walls v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

8 Citing cases

  1. Adam P. v. O'Malley

    3:21-cv-1267 (SRU) (D. Conn. Jul. 19, 2024)

    I. Standard of Review Section 406(b)(1) of the Social Security Act provides, in part, that “[w]henever a court renders a judgment favorable to a [counseled] claimant” under the Social Security Act, “the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment.” 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). Attorneys' fee awards under section 406(b) are paid directly out of the plaintiff's past benefits in accordance with the terms of a contingency agreement. Id.; see Walls v. Comm'r of Social Security, 2020 WL 3026462, at *1 (D. Conn. June 5, 2020). Requests for section 406(b) fees must be both timely and reasonable.

  2. Carrie-Ann M. v. O'Malley

    3:22-cv-719 (SRU) (D. Conn. Jul. 19, 2024)

    I. Standard of Review Section 406(b)(1) of the Social Security Act provides, in part, that “[w]henever a court renders a judgment favorable to a [counseled] claimant” under the Social Security Act, “the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment.” 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). Attorneys' fee awards under section 406(b) are paid directly out of the plaintiff's past benefits in accordance with the terms of a contingency agreement. Id.; see Walls v. Comm'r of Social Security, 2020 WL 3026462, at *1 (D. Conn. June 5, 2020). Requests for section 406(b) fees must be both timely and reasonable.

  3. Noemi C. E. v. O'Malley

    3:21-cv-1457 (SRU) (D. Conn. Jun. 13, 2024)

    Id; see Walls v. Comm'r of Social Security, 2020 WL 3026462, at *1 (D. Conn. June 5, 2020).

  4. Alan M. v. Kijakazi

    3:21-cv-0066 (SRU) (D. Conn. Nov. 17, 2023)

    Id; see Walls v. Comm'r of Social Security, 2020 WL 3026462, at *1 (D. Conn. June 5, 2020).

  5. Sulane G. v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin.

    Civ. 3:19CV00364(SALM) (D. Conn. Jul. 3, 2023)

    Accordingly, like other courts in this Circuit, the Court will exercise its discretion and allow plaintiff's counsel to file his section 406(b) application outside the fourteen-day filing deadline. See, e.g., Henderson, 2021 WL 5206385, at *3 (permitting late filing of section 406(b) application where “[c]ounsel was diligent and filed the motion for attorney's fees 11 days after receiving notice” of the award); Walls v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:17CV01669(RMS), 2020 WL 3026462, at *3 (D. Conn. June 5, 2020) (finding that section 406(b) motion filed eight days after the filing deadline “was timely filed[]” given the “short delay[]”).

  6. Roland G. v. Kijakazi

    3:20-cv-1784 (SRU) (D. Conn. Jan. 26, 2023)

    Id; see Walls v. Comm'r of Social Security, 2020 WL 3026462, at *1 (D. Conn. June 5, 2020).

  7. Santana v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

    17-CV-2648 (VSB) (BCM) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2022)   Cited 3 times

    Various courts have proceeded similarly. See, e.g., Williams v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2021 WL 4480536, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2021) (fee motion timely over four months after 14-day filing period began to run where attorney was working from home and experienced mailing delays); see also Walls v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2020 WL 3026462, at *3 (D. Conn. June 5, 2020) (fee motion timely eight days after deadline); Lesterhuis v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 408 F.Supp.3d 292, 295 (W.D.N.Y. 2019) (same, nine days after); Tanner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2018 WL 6521585, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2018) (same, 19 days after).

  8. Williams v. Comm'r of The Soc. Sec. Admin.

    18-CV-4734 (PKC) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2021)   Cited 18 times

    For example, in Janes v. Saul, No. 18-CV-5054 (GBD) (SDA), 2020 WL 7029173, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2020), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Janes v. Berryhill, 498 F.Supp.3d 540 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), the court forgave a delay of three months “[b]ecause [the] [p]laintiff's administrative counsel's office was closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, ” so he did not receive the Notices of Award until nearly 3 months after they were mailed. In Walls v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 17-CV-1669 (RMS), 2020 WL 3026462, at *3 (D. Conn. June 5, 2020), the court forgave the plaintiff's filing of a fee petition eight days after the 14-day filing period, given that there was a work-from-home order in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic, even though “counsel [did] not offer[] a justification for his short delay.”