IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Tamera P., No. 2:18-cv-02169-HZ
Plaintiff, ORDER
v.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Plaintiff Tamera P. brought this action seeking review of the Commissioner’s final
decision to deny Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits. On September
9, 2019, pursuant to the parties’ stipulated motion, the Court reversed the Commissioner’s
decision and ordered that the case be remanded for additional proceedings. Order, ECF 15.
Judgment was also entered on September 9, 2019. ECF 16. On March 1, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel
received notice of Plaintiff’s award for benefits. Pl. Mem. 3; Pl. Mot. Ex. C, ECF 19.
Plaintiff now seeks an award of fees of $34,667.23 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Pl.
Mem. 2. Defendant neither supports nor opposes the request. Pl. Mot. Ex. 6. The Court has
reviewed the record in the case, the motion, and the supporting materials including the award of
benefits, the fee agreement with counsel, and the recitation of counsel’s hours and services.
Applying the standards set by Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002), the Court finds
the requested fees reasonable.
The Court GRANTS the motion [19] and awards Plaintiff’s counsel $34,667.23 in
attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Previously, the Court awarded Plaintiff attorney’s fees
in the amount of $5,267.80 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
Upon payment of the § 406(b) fees, Plaintiff’s counsel will refund any EAJA fees received by
counsel to Plaintiff. Any amount withheld after all administrative and court attorney’s fees are
paid should be released to the claimant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: _______A__p_ri_l _6_, _2_0_2_4___________.
___________________________________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.