Squires v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida·Decided August 27, 2025·No. 6:23-cv-00233·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

JESSICA LEIGH SQUIRES,

Plaintiff, Case No. 6:23-cv-233-KCD

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. /

ORDER Having obtained an award of benefits, Jessica Leigh Squires’ attorneys, Richard Culbertson and Sarah Patience Jacobs, seek attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (Doc. 33.) Defendant neither supports nor opposes the motion. (Id. at 3.) Section 406(b) provides that an attorney who obtains a benefits award on remand may petition for a reasonable fee—not to exceed twenty-five percent of the claimant’s past-due benefits—for work performed before the court. Here, the attorneys request $3,966, which is 25 percent of past-due benefits, less the previous EAJA award of $4,537.65 and a further reduction so that the award is consistent with the amount still being withheld by the Social Security Administration. (Doc. 33 at 2; Doc. 33-2 at 4; Doc. 32); see Paltan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 519 F. App’x 673, 674 (11th Cir. 2013) (noting that the attorney has the option of either refunding a prior EAJA award to the plaintiff directly or reducing the § 406(b) award by the same amount). For the reasons stated in Squires’ motion, the requested fee 1s both reasonable and appropriate under § 406(b). Accordingly, the fee motion (Doc. 33) is GRANTED. The clerk will enter judgment for Squires for $3,966 in attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 27, 2025.

= fr ee —_— Lyte A aslo” * Kale C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge

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

Squires v. Commissioner of Social Security, (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Squires v. Commissioner of Social Security (Squires v. Commissioner of Social Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gregory Maurice Smith v. Warden
519 F. App'x 673 (Eleventh Circuit, 2013)