Duke v. Gardner
This text of 264 F. Supp. 187 (Duke v. Gardner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
' The attorney for the plaintiff in the above case has filed a motion for summary judgment and has applied to the Court for allowance of attorney’s fees.
The instant case was brought in this Court pursuant to Title 42, U.S.C.A. § 405(g) and Title 42, U.S.C.A. 406(b) (1) for review of a decision of the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Upon the motion of the Secretary, the case was remanded to the Secretary for further consideration.
Upon remand, an award was made in the plaintiff’s favor. Thus, no judgment was made by the Court, and therefore Title 42, U.S.C.A. § 406(b) (1) regarding attorney’s fees in cases where court action results in a favorable decision for the claimant is not applicable.
The proper form of relief for the plaintiff’s attorney is through application to the Secretary for attorney’s fees. Until such remedy is sought, the Court will not rule on the matter. See Haley v. Gardner, 259 F.Supp. 30 (D.C., 1966).
Thus, the plaintiff’s motion is denied.
It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
264 F. Supp. 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duke-v-gardner-gand-1967.