Overlund v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Oregon District Court Overlund v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Overlund v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Plaintiff:	Kathryn J. Overlund
Defendant:	Commissioner Social Security Administration
Case Number:	6:2015cv01670
Filed:	September 3, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office:	Eugene (6) Office
Presiding Judge:	Michael H. Simon
Nature of Suit:	Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1383 Review of HHS Decision
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
August 20, 2018	Filing 34 ORDER - Plaintiffs counsels motion for attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 33 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs counsel is awarded $11,992.25 in § 406(b) fees, representing 25 percent of Plaintiff's retroactive benefits rec overy. After subtracting the $6,808 EAJA fee award previously granted to counsel, the additional fee award is $5,184.25, less any applicable administrative assessment as allowed by statute. The Commissioner shall pay fees in that amount to Plaintiffs counsel out of the sum withheld by the Commissioner from Plaintiffs benefits and shall pay to Plaintiff any remaining amounts. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 20th day of August, 2018, by United States District Judge Michael H. Simon. (peg)
March 27, 2017	Filing 27 Opinion and Order - The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order. Signed on 3/27/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 20, 2018

Filing 34 ORDER - Plaintiffs counsels motion for attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 33 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs counsel is awarded $11,992.25 in § 406(b) fees, representing 25 percent of Plaintiff's retroactive benefits rec overy. After subtracting the $6,808 EAJA fee award previously granted to counsel, the additional fee award is $5,184.25, less any applicable administrative assessment as allowed by statute. The Commissioner shall pay fees in that amount to Plaintiffs counsel out of the sum withheld by the Commissioner from Plaintiffs benefits and shall pay to Plaintiff any remaining amounts. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 20th day of August, 2018, by United States District Judge Michael H. Simon. (peg)

March 27, 2017

Filing 27 Opinion and Order - The Commissioner's decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order. Signed on 3/27/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja)

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 Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Overlund v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Commissioner Social Security Administration
Represented By:	Janice E. Hebert
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Kathryn J. Overlund
Represented By:	Robert A. Baron
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?