Heaggans v. Saul

W.D. North Carolina

Heaggans v. Saul

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina

DecidedMarch 20, 2024

Docket5:20-cv-00098

StatusUnknown

This text of Heaggans v. Saul (Heaggans v. Saul) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Heaggans v. Saul, (W.D.N.C. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 5:20-CV-098-DCK LISA HEAGGANS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. ) )

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff’s Motion For Attorney Fees Under § 406(b) Of The Social Security Act” (Document No. 30) filed March 4, 2024. The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the undersigned will grant the motion. By the instant motion, Plaintiff’s counsel (the “Movant”) seeks an award of attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 206(B) and 406(b) in the amount of $17,250.00. (Document No. 30, p. 1). Movant notes that “[t]his represents less than 25% of the back benefits awarded to Plaintiff by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”).” Id. (citing Document No. 30-1, p. 1). Movant also contends that the fees sought are reasonable, noting that Plaintiff has been “awarded more than $100,000.00 in total back benefits as well as ongoing benefits.” (Document No. 30, p. 2) (citing Mudd v. Barnhart, 418 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir. 2005) and (Document No. 30-1, p. 1)). “Defendant’s Response…” states that it “neither supports nor opposes counsel’s request for attorney’s fees.” (Document No. 32, p. 2). Defendant notes that the request for fees must satisfy the “requirement of reasonableness” and that “attorney’s fees awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) may not exceed 25% of the total of the claimant’s past-due benefits” Id. Based on the parties’ briefs and the applicable legal authority, the undersigned will allow Movant’s request. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff's Motion For Attorney Fees Under § 406(b) Of The Social Security Act” (Document No. 30) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant, Derrick K. Arrowood, is awarded the sum of $17,250.00, to be sent by the Commissioner to Movant’s office at P.O. Box 58129, Raleigh, North Carolina 27658. Upon receipt of such payment, Movant shall refund to Plaintiff the EAJA fee award of $5,250.00. SO ORDERED. Signed: March 20, 2024 DiC pe David C. Keesler “ey United States Magistrate Judge get

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 NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 5:20-CV-098-DCK LISA HEAGGANS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. ) )

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff’s Motion For Attorney Fees Under § 406(b) Of The Social Security Act” (Document No. 30) filed March 4, 2024. The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the undersigned will grant the motion. By the instant motion, Plaintiff’s counsel (the “Movant”) seeks an award of attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 206(B) and 406(b) in the amount of $17,250.00. (Document No. 30, p. 1). Movant notes that “[t]his represents less than 25% of the back benefits awarded to Plaintiff by the Social Security Administration (“SSA”).” Id. (citing Document No. 30-1, p. 1). Movant also contends that the fees sought are reasonable, noting that Plaintiff has been “awarded more than $100,000.00 in total back benefits as well as ongoing benefits.” (Document No. 30, p. 2) (citing Mudd v. Barnhart, 418 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir. 2005) and (Document No. 30-1, p. 1)). “Defendant’s Response…” states that it “neither supports nor opposes counsel’s request for attorney’s fees.” (Document No. 32, p. 2). Defendant notes that the request for fees must satisfy the “requirement of reasonableness” and that “attorney’s fees awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) may not exceed 25% of the total of the claimant’s past-due benefits” Id. Based on the parties’ briefs and the applicable legal authority, the undersigned will allow Movant’s request. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff's Motion For Attorney Fees Under § 406(b) Of The Social Security Act” (Document No. 30) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant, Derrick K. Arrowood, is awarded the sum of $17,250.00, to be sent by the Commissioner to Movant’s office at P.O. Box 58129, Raleigh, North Carolina 27658. Upon receipt of such payment, Movant shall refund to Plaintiff the EAJA fee award of $5,250.00. SO ORDERED. Signed: March 20, 2024 DiC pe David C. Keesler “ey United States Magistrate Judge get

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Heaggans v. Saul, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heaggans-v-saul-ncwd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack