Bulger v. Colvin (CONSENT)
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|December 8, 2014
ORDERED as follows: 1) That the court's 22 order be and is hereby VACATED; 2) The dft's 23 motion to amend the award of attorney's fees be and is hereby GRANTED; 3) That the 19 motion for attorney's fees be and is hereby GRA NTED to the extent that the plf be and is hereby AWARDED attorney's fees in the amount of $2,793.81 and expenses in the amount of $8.17 for a total award of $2,801.98; 4) To the extent that plf's counsel requests that fees sh ould be awarded to directly to counsel, 28 USC § 2412(d)(1)(A) authorizes the court to award fees to the prevailing party, as further set out in order; The motion that fees be paid directly to counsel be and is hereby DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 12/8/2014. (wcl, )
|September 12, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court concludes that the decision of the Commissioner denying benefits to Bulger should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Further, it is ORDERED that, in accordance with B ergen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 454 F.3d 1273, 1278 n.2 (11th Cir. 2006), the plaintiff shall have sixty (60) days after he receives notice ofany amount of past due benefits awarded to seek attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). See also Blitch v. Astrue, 261 Fed. Appx. 241, 242 n.1 (11th Cir. 2008). The Court will enter a separate final judgment. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 9/12/2014. (dmn, )
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?