Susanna Mercedes Cox v. Commissioner of Social Security

23-CV-263 (LDH) (TAM) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2025) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York · November 26, 2025 · No. 23-CV-263 (LDH) (TAM)

Summary

The court recommends granting Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) following a favorable Social Security disability determination on remand. It finds the application timely and the requested $15,401.50 fee reasonable, while directing counsel to refund the $6,579.39 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Holdings

  1. The fee application should be deemed timely because the fourteen-day period is subject to equitable tolling and began when counsel received notice of the benefits calculation; counsel filed within fourteen days of receiving that notice.
  2. The requested $15,401.50 fee should be approved as reasonable because it represented 25% of past-due benefits, complied with the statutory cap, was supported by a valid contingency-fee agreement, and did not result from fraud, overreaching, undue delay, or an unreasonable windfall.
  3. Counsel should be directed to refund plaintiff any amount received under the EAJA because fees may be awarded under both the EAJA and § 406(b), but the claimant's attorney must refund the smaller fee.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff's § 406(b) attorney-fee application was timely when filed within fourteen days after counsel received delayed notice of the agency's benefits calculation.
  2. Whether the requested $15,401.50 contingency fee was reasonable under § 406(b), the fee agreement, and the applicable statutory 25% cap.
  3. Whether counsel was required to refund to plaintiff the amount previously received under the EAJA.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (11)

  • Culbertson v. Berryhill, 586 U.S. 53, 55-56 (2019)(followed)
  • Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 794, 796 (2002)(followed)
  • Sinkler v. Berryhill, 932 F.3d 83, 86-88, 91 (2d Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • Wells v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 367, 371-72 (2d Cir. 1990)(followed)
  • Devenish v. Astrue, 85 F. Supp. 3d 634, 636 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)(followed)
  • Fields v. Kijakazi, 24 F.4th 845, 849 (2d Cir. 2022)(followed)
  • Hanna v. Kijakazi, No. 21-CV-5543 (EK) (SJB), 2024 WL 4252032, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2024)(followed)
  • Shawn H. v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:19-CV-113 (KJD), 2021 WL 4990049, at *2 (D. Vt. Oct. 27, 2021)(followed)
  • Farrar v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 22-CV-8844 (JCM), 2025 WL 2855628, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2025)(followed)
  • Lapompe v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, No. 21-CV-4160 (EK) (TAM), 2025 WL 624423, at *2 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 622877 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2025)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…