Robinson v. Celebrezze, Civ. A. No. 4346.
| Decision Date | 10 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 4346. |
| Citation | 248 F. Supp. 149 |
| Parties | Ethelle B. ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. Anthony CELEBREZZE, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Hugh Geddes Martin, Asst. Dist. Atty., and John C. Williams, Dist. Atty., for defendant.
Petition of original claimant seeks this Court's confirmation, approval, and direction of, and as to, the original terms of an employment contract in which, for professional services rendered by counsel, petitioner agreed to pay her attorney 50% of any amount gained by him in "back payments" due her for "disability" under the Social Security Act. It appears that Counsel represented her in preparing her case for original presentation before the Hearing Examiner in Greenwood, South Carolina, on August 17, 1962, appealed an adverse decision of February 15, 1963 (denied April 3, 1963), and thereafter filed suit in petitioner's behalf on May 20, 1963. At the Spring term of the United States District Court, Greenwood Division, for 1965, plaintiff's attorney announced that he was ready for a hearing before the District Court, but the matter was not reached; thereafter, on June 9, 1965, the case was remanded to the Administrative level for the taking of further testimony and/or further appropriate action.
At the hearing before the Court in Columbia the District Attorney admirably admitted that the Government does not question the amount of work done, the quality, or that petitioner is now receiving Social Security benefits as a result of counsel's application and representation, in addition to the facts which counsel presented to the Court.
The Court is aware of the vigor of counsel in preparing for hearing before the matter was remanded, and accepts his uncontradicted statement that a great deal of time was spent by counsel, not only in preparing the cause for the various hearings, but in various conferences, travel, etc. This Court is presently convinced that, without counsel, petitioner, as claimant, would not have received her benefits. It logically follows that, if she could have received without counsel, the Hearing Examiner should have granted, after the hearing of August 17, 1962. It is to counsel's credit that, despite the administrative limit of fee then in effect, counsel pursued the matter to its ultimate result.1
The payment of back benefits dated only to November, 1960, and not to 1954, since plaintiff's age would prevent her recovery until 1960. This Court's original authority in the matter of attorney's fees was taken from Sparks v. Celebrezze, D.C., 228 F.Supp. 508, 512, from which we quote:2
It seems that if Congress had intended to regulate attorneys' fees for representation in the District Courts of the United States, it would have so provided; and the determination of reasonable attorneys' fees for appearance and representation before the District Court of the United States itself, not the Secretary should not be taken from the Judiciary without a clear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. United States
... ... UNITED STATES of America, Respondent ... Civ. No. 3-65-356 ... United States District Court D. Minnesota, Third ... ...
-
Swotes v. Gardner
...District Court. It is of no help in our strictly Agency problem. Folsom v. McDonald, 237 F.2d 380 (4 Cir. 1956) and Robinson v. Celebrezze, 248 F.Supp. 149 (D.C.W.D.S.C.1965) are also concerned with District Court fee allowances. Appellant refers to the Secretary's regulation 20 C.F.R. 404.......
-
Gardner v. Menendez, 6761.
...that the agency before whom services were rendered should be the one to determine their value. To the extent that Robinson v. Celebrezze, W.D. S.C., 1965, 248 F.Supp. 149, holds to the contrary, we do not accept There is nothing singular in the fact that counsel who appears in two forums sh......
-
Gardner v. Mitchell
...claimant; 146 hours on the administrative level, and 47 hours in the District Court. They offered the case of Robinson v. Celebrezze, 1965, W.D.S.C., 248 F.Supp. 149, as authority for awarding a fee of fifty per cent of the recovery. That case has now been reversed on the ground that the lo......