• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
8 results

Simon v. Commissioner of Social Security

Docket 1:21-cv-00556, Texas Eastern District Court (Nov. 8, 2021)
Judge Michael J. Truncale, presiding, Magistrate Judge Christine L. Stetson
Social Security - DIWC/DIWW
DivisionBeaumont
FlagsCASREF
Cause42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)
Case Type863 Social Security - DIWC/DIWW
Tags863 Social Security, Diwc / Diww, 863 Social Security, Diwc / Diww
Plaintiff Laquinta Dawanda Simon
Defendant Commissioner of Social Security
Plaintiff Simon
cite Cite Docket

Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC v. Jo-Ann Stores, LLC

Docket 4:21-cv-00556, Texas Eastern District Court (July 17, 2021)
District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III, presiding
Patent
DivisionSherman
FlagsJURY, PATENT/TRADEMARK
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Plaintiff Consolidated Transaction Processing LLC
Defendant Jo-Ann Stores, LLC
cite Cite Docket

No. 30 ORDER adopting 29 Report and Recommendations and granting 27 Motion for Attorney's Fees

Document Simon v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:21-cv-00556, No. 30 (E.D.Tex. Nov. 17, 2023)
Before the court is a report and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge regarding the Plaintiff’s Motion for 406(b) Attorney’s Fees.
Having conducted an independent review, the court concludes that the report of the magistrate judge should be ADOPTED and the motion should be GRANTED.
ORDERED that Counsel Howard D. Olinsky is awarded attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in the amount of $8,206.48.
Upon receipt of that payment, Mr. Olinsky is ORDERED to refund EAJA fees in the amount of $4,979.41 directly to the claimant.
Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge SIGNED this 17th day of November, 2023.
cite Cite Document

No. 29 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the Court should grant 27 Motion for Attorney Fees

Document Simon v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:21-cv-00556, No. 29 (E.D.Tex. Oct. 31, 2023)
This matter is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for review, hearing if necessary, and submission of a report with recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law.1 Howard D. Olinsky, attorney, represents Laquinta Dawanda Simon in this social security appeal.
1General Order 05-06 refers civil proceedings involving appeals from decisions of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration to magistrate judges serving the divisions where the cases are filed.
Those additional factors include, “risk of loss in the representation, experience of the attorney, percentage of the past-due benefits the fee constitutes, value of the case to a claimant, degree of difficulty, and whether the client consents to the requested fee.” Paul v. Colvin, No. 3:12-CV-0130-G BH, 2014 WL 1724845, at *2 (N.D. Tex.
Other courts have upheld such higher rates and have also warned against giving primacy to a lodestar analysis over the terms of the contingency fee agreement between a plaintiff and the claimant.
Given the risk associated with taking a case on a contingency basis, this attorney’s qualifications, experience in social security law, and the quality of representation, the undersigned finds that the requested fee is reasonable for Mr. Olinsky.
cite Cite Document

No. 26 ORDER adopting 25 Report and Recommendation and granting 22 Motion for Attorney Fees

Document Simon v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:21-cv-00556, No. 26 (E.D.Tex. Feb. 6, 2023)
Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees [dkt. 22] is GRANTED and the Commissioner of Social Security shall pay Laquinta Dawanda Simon, in care of her attorney, Howard D. Olinsky, an attorney fee in the amount of $4,979.41.
The court directs that the award be mailed to Laquinta Dawanda Simon, in care of her attorney, Howard D. Olinsky, at his office address, Olinsky Law Group, 250 S. Clinton St., Suite 210, Syracuse, NY 13202.
It is further ORDERED that this award is subject to any beneficial, contractual and/or assignment- based interests held by the Plaintiff’s attorney.
Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge SIGNED this 6th day of February, 2023.
cite Cite Document

No. 25 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the Court should grant 22 Motion for Attorney Fees

Document Simon v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:21-cv-00556, No. 25 (E.D.Tex. Jan. 17, 2023)
This case was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge and initially sought judicial review of an administrative decision denying the Plaintiff, Laquinta Dawanda Simon (“Simon”), disability benefits.
The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2412, et seq., empowers courts to award attorney’s fees to parties who prevail in litigation against the United States.
Plaintiff’s counsel proffered a Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) report compiled and published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as proof of an increase in the cost of living.
Award In Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 295 (1993), the Supreme Court stated that, “a court’s order to remand a case pursuant to sentence four of §405(g) necessarily means that the Commissioner committed legal error.” Consequently, the Plaintiff in this action is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs of court since there are no special circumstances or a showing that the position of the United States was substantially justified.
A party’s failure to file specific, written objections to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in this report, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of this report, bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by the United States district judge of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276– 77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of any such findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the United States district judge, see Douglass v. United Servs.
cite Cite Document

No. 20 ORDER adopting the 19 Report and Recommendation re the 18 Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand

Document Simon v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:21-cv-00556, No. 20 (E.D.Tex. Oct. 13, 2022)
The Court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to applicable law and orders of this Court.
The Court received and considered the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge regarding Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand.
The Court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the United States Magistrate Judge are correct and the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED.
A Final Judgment will be entered separately, reversing and remanding this action to the Commissioner for rehearing and a de novo determination under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge SIGNED this 13th day of October, 2022.
cite Cite Document

No. 19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Regarding 18 Unopposed Motion to Reverse and Remand

Document Simon v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:21-cv-00556, No. 19 (E.D.Tex. Sep. 29, 2022)
Motion to Remand
The Plaintiff filed a brief on June 17, 2022, arguing: 1.The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to address Ms. Simon’s documented medical need for a cane.
5.The Agency failed to include the prior ALJ decision for Ms. Simon dated June 13, 2019 in the administrative record (Tr. 56).
On September 16, 2022, the Commissioner filed an “Unopposed Motion to Remand for further Administrative Proceedings pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g).” (Doc.
After considering the pleadings, the court may order a sentence four remand in conjunction with a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner.
A party’s failure to file specific, written objections to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in this report, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of this report, bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by the United States District Judge of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of any such findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the United States District Judge, see Douglass v. United Servs.
cite Cite Document