Reported / Citable
Background
Frankie Lara’s Social Security case was previously remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings on May 14, 2026, pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Following this remand, Lara filed an Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff’s counsel certified that they had conferred with counsel for the Commissioner, who did not object to the motion.
Lara argued that attorney’s fees were justified because she was the prevailing party, the Commissioner had requested the voluntary remand, and the Court had granted the agreed voluntary remand for all further proceedings. Lara sought recovery for 19.5 hours of attorney services at an hourly rate of $242, totaling $4,961.00.
The Court’s Holding
The Court issued a Memorandum and Recommendation, addressing Lara’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees. The Court independently determined that both the requested hourly rate of $242 and the 19.5 hours of attorney services were reasonable, citing precedent that supported high numbers of attorney hours when a plaintiff is successful.
Based on these findings, the Court RECOMMENDED that Lara’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees be GRANTED. Consequently, the Court recommended that Lara be awarded $4,961.00 in attorney’s fees. The memorandum also specified that parties have fourteen days to file written objections to the recommendation, failing which they may be barred from attacking the factual findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A court may recommend attorney fees when a Social Security case is remanded to the Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
- A plaintiff is generally considered a prevailing party when a voluntary remand is granted by the court, justifying an award of attorney fees.
- Courts conduct an independent review of the reasonableness of requested attorney hours and hourly rates, even if the motion is unopposed.
- Failure to file timely objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation can waive the right to appeal its factual findings and legal conclusions.
Why It Matters
This recommendation provides clarity for attorneys and claimants regarding the recovery of attorney fees in Social Security cases that are resolved by remand. It reinforces that a voluntary remand can qualify a claimant as a “prevailing party” for the purpose of fee awards, even without a full merits judgment in their favor. The court’s independent assessment of fee reasonableness, despite the motion being unopposed, underscores the judicial oversight required in awarding public funds and provides a benchmark for appropriate billing practices in this area of law.