Biggs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

W.D. Oklahoma

Biggs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedFebruary 1, 2024

Docket5:23-cv-00742

StatusUnknown

This text of Biggs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Biggs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Biggs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (W.D. Okla. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

MICHELLE LYNN BIGGS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-23-742-D ) MARTIN O’MALLEY,1 ) Commissioner of ) Social Security, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 28 U.S.C. §2412 [Doc. No. 13]. Plaintiff seeks an award of fees in the amount of $5,321.70 to compensate her attorney for legal services provided in the case (21.9 hours of attorney time). Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) by virtue of the Order of Remand [Doc. No. 11] and Judgment [Doc. No. 12] entered November 14, 2023. Defendant has responded by stating that he does not contest an award of attorney fees of $5,321.70 payable to Plaintiff, consistent with Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 595-98 (2010), Manning v. Astrue, 510 F.3d 1246, 1255 (10th Cir. 2007), and Brown v. Astrue, 271 F. App’x 741, 743-44 (10th Cir. 2008). See Def.’s Resp. [Doc. No. 16] at 2.

1 Mr. O’Malley became the Commissioner of Social Security on December 20, 2023. See Def.’s Resp. [Doc. No. 16] at 1 n.1. Under FED. R. CIV. P. 25(d), he is “automatically substituted as a party.” After consideration of the law and the case record, and accepting the representations in Defendant’s Response, the Court finds: (1) the Commissioner’s position in the case was not substantially justified; (2) Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); and (3) the amount of fees is reasonable. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application for Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 28 U.S.C. §2412 [Doc. No. 13] is GRANTED. The Court orders an award of attorney fees to Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act in the amount of $5,321.70. Should an additional fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) subsequently be authorized, Plaintiff’s attorney shall refund the smaller amount to Plaintiff as required by Weakley v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 575, 580 (10th Cir. 1986). IT IS SO ORDERED this 1* day of February, 2024.

\" \ Ny QQ, TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

MICHELLE LYNN BIGGS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-23-742-D ) MARTIN O’MALLEY,1 ) Commissioner of ) Social Security, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 28 U.S.C. §2412 [Doc. No. 13]. Plaintiff seeks an award of fees in the amount of $5,321.70 to compensate her attorney for legal services provided in the case (21.9 hours of attorney time). Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) by virtue of the Order of Remand [Doc. No. 11] and Judgment [Doc. No. 12] entered November 14, 2023. Defendant has responded by stating that he does not contest an award of attorney fees of $5,321.70 payable to Plaintiff, consistent with Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 595-98 (2010), Manning v. Astrue, 510 F.3d 1246, 1255 (10th Cir. 2007), and Brown v. Astrue, 271 F. App’x 741, 743-44 (10th Cir. 2008). See Def.’s Resp. [Doc. No. 16] at 2.

1 Mr. O’Malley became the Commissioner of Social Security on December 20, 2023. See Def.’s Resp. [Doc. No. 16] at 1 n.1. Under FED. R. CIV. P. 25(d), he is “automatically substituted as a party.” After consideration of the law and the case record, and accepting the representations in Defendant’s Response, the Court finds: (1) the Commissioner’s position in the case was not substantially justified; (2) Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); and (3) the amount of fees is reasonable. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application for Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 28 U.S.C. §2412 [Doc. No. 13] is GRANTED. The Court orders an award of attorney fees to Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act in the amount of $5,321.70. Should an additional fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) subsequently be authorized, Plaintiff’s attorney shall refund the smaller amount to Plaintiff as required by Weakley v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 575, 580 (10th Cir. 1986). IT IS SO ORDERED this 1* day of February, 2024.

\" \ Ny QQ, TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Biggs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biggs-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-okwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack