FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 6, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK C O R R EC TED [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 14683 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 2 - 0 0 4 5 8 - CV - O RL- 2 2 - K RS D O N A L D B E R G E N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C O M M I S S I O N E R O F S O C I A L S E C U R I T Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ N o. 05- 14684 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 00 -004 42 -C V -O R L -22-A J A M E S R . T A Y L O R , J R ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s2

W I L L I A M A . H A L T E R , C o m m is s io n e ro f S o c ia l S e c u r ity A d m in is tr a tio n , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 6, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: W e V A C A T E ourpr i oropi ni on i n thi s c a s e , i s s ue d on A pr i l 4, 2006, a nd r e pl a c e i tw i th the f

ol l ow i ng opi ni on. D oe s 42 U . S . C . § 406( b) ( 1) ( A ) pe r m i ta n a w a r d of a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s w he n a d is tr ic t c o u r t r e m a n d s a c a s e to th e C o m m is s io n e ro f S o c ia l S e c u r ity ( C o m m is s io n e r ) f

o rf u r th e rp r o c e e d in g s , a n d th e C o m m is s io n e rs u b s e q u e n tly aw ar ds the cl ai m antpast -due benefi t s on rem and? T hi s c on sol i dat ed appeal p r e s e n ts u s w ith a n o p p o r tu n ity to a n s w e rth is p r e c is e q u e s tio n d e f in itiv e ly . W e fi nd that§ 4 06 (b)( 1)(A ) perm i t s a tt orney’ s f ee s f or past -due benefi t s a ft era r e m a n d . B AC KG R OU ND D ona l d B e r ge n a nd J a m e s R . T a y l ors e pa r a t e l y f i l e d appl i c a t i ons w i th the3

So c i a l Se c u r i ty A d mi n i s tr a t i o n ( SSA ) f o rd i s ab i l i ty b e n e f

i t s . Bo th o f

th e i rc l a i ms w e r e de ni e d i ni t i a l l y a nd on r e c ons i de r a t i on, a nd the y r e que s t e d a n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve he a r i ng. A f

t e ra n A dm i ni s tr a t i ve L a w J udge ( A L J ) de t e r m i ne d tha tthe y w e r e not e nt i t l e d t o be ne f

i t s be c a us e the y w e r e notdi s abl e d, the y both f i l e d the i rr e s pe c t i ve com pl ai nt s i n the di stri ctcourtse eki ng re vi ew of the C om m i ss i on er ’ s f i nal d e c is io n . R ic h a r d C u lb e r ts o n , a la w y e r , r e p r e s e n te d b o th B e r g e n a n d T a y lo r . B o th c l a i m a nt s e nt e r e d i nt o a c ont i nge nc y f e e a gr e e m e ntw i th C ul be r t s on pr ovi di ng f or pa y m e ntof

a r e a s onabl e f

e e noti n e xc e s s of

25 pe r c e ntof

the t ot a l of

the pa s t - due be ne f i t s t o w hi c h the y w oul d be c om e e nt i t l e d by r e a s on of a f a vor abl e j udgm e nt r e n d e r e d in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. I n B e r ge n’ s c a s e , the di s tr i c tc our tr e ve r s e d the C om m i s s i one r ’ s de c i s i on and rem anded t he ca se for f urther procee di ng s on the m er i t s pursuantt o sent ence fo u r o f 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 (g ). B er g en th en filed a p etit io n fo r a n aw ar d o f a tt o rn ey ’s fe es un der the E qu al A cc es s t o Just i ce A ct(E A JA ), 28 U . S . C . § 2 41 2 w hi ch w as grant ed. S ub se qu ent l y, an A L J e nt er ed a f ul l y f avorabl e dec i si on aw ar di ng B er gen d is a b ility b e n e f

its , w h ic h e n title d B e r g e n to p a s t- d u e b e n e f its a s a r e s u lt o f

h is di sabi l i ty. B utw hen C ul bert son then fi l ed hi s pet i t i on for autho ri za t i on t o charge a r e a s ona bl e f

e e f orr e pr e s e nt a t i on be f

or e the di s tr i c tc our tpur s ua ntt o § 406( b) , the4

di stri ctcourtdeni ed the pet i t i on , fi nd i ng thatthe st atut e does notperm i tan aw ar d of att orney’ s f

ee s. T he di stri ctcourtal so foun d thateven i f the st atut e perm i tt ed an a w a r d of a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s , the pe t i t i on w a s nott i m e l y f i l e d i n c om pl i a nc e w i th F e d. R . C i v. P . 54( d) ( 2) ( B ) a nd M . D . F l a . L oc a l R . 4. 18. L i ke B e r ge n, T a y l or ’ s c a s e w a s a l s o r e m a nde d t o the C om m i s s i one rof S oci al S ec uri ty a ft erthe di stri ctcourtre vers ed the C om m i ss i on er ’ s dec i si on un der se n ten ce fo u r o f § 4 0 5 (g ). T ay lo r a lso filed a p etit io n fo r a n aw ar d o f a tt o rn ey ’s f e e s unde rthe E A J A butthe di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the pe t i t i on on the gr ound tha tthe C om m i s s i one r ’ s pos i t i on w a s s ubs t a nt i a l l y j us t i f i e d. T a y l orappe a l e d thi s de c i s i on t o thi s C ou rt , af

t erw hi ch the part i es ent er ed i nt o a j oi ntst i pu l at i on prov i di ng that T ay l or w as ent i t l ed t o an aw ar d o f a tt orney’ s f ee s und erthe E A JA , and t he appeal w a s d is m is s e d . L a te r , a n A L J e n te r e d a f a v o r ab le d e c is io n a w a r d in g T a y lo rp a s td u e d is a b ility b e n e f

its . B u t w h e n C u lb e r ts o n f ile d a p e titio n f

o ra u th o r iz a tio n to char ge a r ea sonabl e f

ee for r epre se nt at i on of T ay l or before the di stri ctcourt pur s ua ntt o § 406( b) , the di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the pe t i t i on f orthe s a m e r e a s ons gi ve n t o B e r ge n. B er g en an d T ay lo r th en ap p ea led th e d istrict co u rt’s d en ial o f C u lb er tso n ’s pe t i t i on f ora tt orne y ’ s f

e e s pur s ua ntt o § 406( b) , a nd w e c ons ol i da t e d the c a s e s f or th e p u rp o s e o f

th is ap p e a l.5 DI S C US S I ON I. T o r e s ol ve thi s appe a l , w e a r e c a l l e d upon t o e nga ge i n a n e xe r c i s e of s t a tut ory i nt e rpr e t a t i on. W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of a s t a tut e de n o v o . S tro u

p v. B a rn h a rt , 3 2 7 F .3 d 1 2 5 8 , 1 2 6 0 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , ce rt. deni ed , 5 4 0 U . S. 1 0 7 4 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . “ [ I ] f

th e s t a tu t e s p e a k s c l e a r l y t o th e p r e c i s e q u e s t i o n a ti s s u e , we m ustgi ve ef

fe ctt o the un am bi gu ou sl y e xp re ss ed i nt entof C on gres s. ” B arnh art v. W al ton , 535 U . S . 212, 217- 18, 122 S . C t . 1265, 1269, 152 L . E d. 2d 330 ( 2002) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . H ow e ve r , “ w he r e C ongr e s s ha s not d ir e c tly a d d r e s s e d th e q u e s tio n a t is s u e , th e a g e n c y ’s d e te r m in a tio n o f th e s ta tu te shou l d b e a cc orded con si derabl e w ei gh t. . . C ou rt s, ho w everneed no tac ce ptan agency ’ s i nt erpret at i on thatfrustra t es the un derl yi ng cong re ss i on al po l i cy . ” Sh oem akerv. B ow en , 8 5 3 F .2 d 8 5 8 , 8 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . T he di stri ctcourtre as on ed that42 U . S . C . § 4 06 (b) di d n otprov i de the court a uthor i ty t o a w a r d a tt orne y ’ s f e e s be c a us e i t s pr i orj udgm e ntdi d nota m ountt o a v i c t o ry f o rth e c l a i ma n t s , b u ts i mp l y r e v e r s e d a n d r e ma n d e d th e i rc a s e s t o th e SSA for f urther c on si dera t i on . A s the di stri ctcourtl i t er al l y r ea ds the st atut e, an aw ar d of att orney’ s f

ee s i s unavai l abl e unl es s i t s j ud gm entent i t l es the cl ai m antt o an a w a r d o f p a s t- d u e b e n e f

its a n d in c lu d e s a n a w a r d o f a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s u n d e r§ 4 0 6 ( b ) .6

T h e st atu t e p ro v i d es: W he ne ve ra c our tr e nde r s a j udgm e ntf a vor abl e t o a cl ai m antun der thi s s ub chapt erw ho i s r epre se nt ed before the c our tby a n a tt orne y , the c our tm a y de t e r m i ne a nd al l ow as partof i t s j ud gm enta r ea sonabl e f ee for s uch r e pr e s e nt a t i on, noti n e xc e s s of 25 pe r c e ntof

the t ot a l of the pa s t - due be ne f

i t s t o w hi c h the c l a i m a nti s e nt i t l e d by re as on of such j ud gm ent , and t he C om m i ss i on erof S oci al S e c ur i ty m a y . . . c e r t i f

y the a m ountof

s uc h f e e f or pa y m e ntt o s uc h a tt orne y outof , a nd noti n a ddi t i on t o, th e am o u n to f su ch p ast -d u e b en efi t s. 42 U . S . C . § 4 06 (b)( 1)(A ). A l tho ug h w e have never a dd re ss ed the preci se i ss ue of w hether § 4 0 6 (b )( 1 )( A ) a u th o rize s a n aw ar d o f a tt o rn ey ’s fe es w h er e th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntr e m a ndi ng the c a s e t o the C om m i s s i one rdoe s note xpl i c i t l y m e nt i on a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s , w e h a v e n o te d th a t th e c o n g r e s s io n a l in te n t b e h in d § 4 0 6 ( b ) is , in part , “ t o encou ra ge ef

fe ct i ve l egal re pres ent at i on of cl ai m ant s by i nsuri ng l aw ye rs tha tthe y w i l l r e c e i ve r e a s onabl e f e e s di r e c t l y thr ough c e r t i f i c a t i on by the S ec re t ary. ” D aw son v. F i nch , 4 2 5 F .2 d 1 1 9 2 , 1 1 9 5 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 0 ) ( h o ld in g th a t a d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y n o t a u th o r iz e a n a tto rn e y to c h a r g e f e e s f o rr e p r e s e n ta tio n in C ou rtw hen t he C om m i ss i on erhas a l re ady autho ri ze d thatatt orney t o charge fe es f orr e pr e s e nt a t i on i n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr oc e e di ngs , a nd de c l i ni ng t o r e a c h the S ec re tary ’s co n ten ti o n th at § 4 0 6 (b ) d o es n o t all o w a C o u rt to au th o rize atto rn ey ’s f e e s unl e s s i tr e nde r s a j udgm e nton the m e r i t s f a vor abl e t o the c l a i m a nt ) . W e ha ve7

a l s o not e d tha tone of

§ 406( b) ’ s goa l s i s t o pr ot e c tc l a i m a nt s by l i m i t i ng the a m o u n t a tto rn e y s m a y c o lle c t. See Sho em aker , 8 5 3 F .2 d a t 8 6 0 - 6 1 ( h o ld in g th a t a d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y c o n s id e rin te r im b e n e f its r e c e iv e d p u r s u a n t to 4 2 U .S .C . § 42 3(g) i n aw ar di ng att orney’ s f ee s und er§ 4 06 (b)) . M oreover, the S up re m e C ou rt ha s he l d tha ta r e m a nd f r om the di s tr i c tc our tt o the S S A unde rs e nt e nc e f ourof 42 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 ( g ) , a s h ap p e n e d h e r e , is a f a v o r ab le ju d g m e n t f

o rth e c la im a n t. See Sh alala v. Scha ef

er , 509 U . S . 292, 301- 02, 113 S . C t . 2625, 2631- 32, 125 L . E d. 2d 2 3 9 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . O the rc i r c ui t s c ons i de r i ng s i m i l a rc a s e s ha ve una ni m ous l y he l d tha t§ 406( b) al l o w s a d i stri ctco u rtt o au th o ri ze at t o rn ey’ s fees fo l l o w i n g a cl ai m an t ’ s su ccess o n a s e n te n c e f

o u rr e m a n d to th e S S A . See R oh ri ch v. B ow en , 796 F . 2d 1030, 1031, ( 8th C i r . 1986) . T he 7th C i r c ui tha s he l d:

a c ou rtca nn otusual l y “ det erm i ne” the am ou ntof the fe e a w a r d a t th e tim e o f

th e ju d g m e n t o rw ith in te n d a y s . R ea di ng the st atut e a s aw ho l e, w e do n otbel i eve that C ongr e s s m e a nttha tthe onl y t i m e a tw hi c h f e e s c oul d be a w a r de d i s the t i m e of

the j udgm e nt . B y a uthor i z i ng the a tt orne y t o be pa i d di r e c t l y outof the c l a i m a nt ’ s pa s t - due benefi t s, C on gres s i nt ended t o m ake i tea si er , no tharder f o ra tto rn e y s to c o lle c t th e irf e e s . A m o r e ap p r o p r ia te r e a di ng of

§ 406( b) ( 1) i s tha ta j udgm e ntf a vor abl e t o the c l a i m a nti s m e r e l y a pr e r e qui s i t e t o a f e e a w a r d unde rthe st atut e. Sm i th v. B ow en , 8 1 5 F .2 d 1 1 5 2 , 1 1 5 5 ( 7 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . C o n tra8

McG ra w v. B a rn h a rt , 370 F . S upp. 2d 1141, 1144 ( N . D . O kl a . 2005) ( “ A j udgm e nt w h ic h m e r e ly r e m a n d s th e a c tio n f o rf u r th e rp r o c e e d in g s b y th e S o c ia l S e c u r ity A dm i ni s tr a t i on doe s note qua t e t o a c l a i m a ntbe i ng e nt i t l e d t o pa s tdue be ne f i t s ‘ by r e a s o n o f’ th e C o u r t’s ju d g m e n t.” ) ; b u t s e e McP e a k v . B a r n h a r t, 388 F . S upp. 2d 74 2, 74 5-46 n. 2 (S . D . W . V a. 20 05 ) ( “ [T he Mc G r a w c our ti s ] r e a di ng [ § 406( b) ] t oo narr ow l y w i tho utconsi deri ng the sort s of j ud gm ent s w hi ch C on gres s has al l ow ed C ou rt s t o m ake i n soci al se curi ty c as es . ”) . L i ke the 7t h C i rc ui t , the 4t h C i rc ui thas h e ld th a t § 4 0 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) p e r m its a n a w a r d o f a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s w h e n a r e m a n d r e s u lts in a n a d m in is tr a tiv e a w a r d o f b e n e f its . C on ner v . G ardn er , 3 8 1 F .2 d 4 9 7 , 5 0 0 ( 4 th C ir . 1 9 6 7 ) ( “T o p e r m it c o u n s e l to r e c e iv e a r e a s o n ab le f e e f o r[ s e r v ic e s r e n d e r e d in the di stri ctcourt ] w i l l no tdefe at[§ 40 6(b)’ s] pu rpose, bu tw i l l se rve t o adv ance i t . ”) W e a gr e e w i th ours i s t e rc i r c ui t s ’ i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the s t a tut e . R e a di ng § 406( b) ( 1) ( A ) l i t e r a l l y , a s di d the di s tr i c tc our t , w oul d f rus tr a t e the unde r l y i ng c o n g r e s s io n a l p o lic y o f

“e n c o u r a g [ in g ] e f

f e c tiv e le g a l r e p r e s e n ta tio n o f c la im a n ts by i ns ur i ng l a w y e r s tha tthe y w i l l r e c e i ve r e a s ona bl e f e e s di r e c t l y thr ough ce rt i fi ca t i on by the S ec re t ary. ” D aw s on , 425 F . 2d a t1195 ; s ee al so Sh oem aker , 8 5 3 F .2 d a t 8 6 0 - 6 1 . L im itin g § 4 0 6 ( b ) f e e s to c a s e s in w h ic h th e C o u r t its e lf a w a r ds pa s t - due be ne f

i t s w oul d a l s o di s c our a ge c ouns e l f r om r e que s t i ng a r e m a nd9

in c a s e s w h e r e it is ap p r o p r ia te . M or e ove r , w e , a l ong w i th the othe rc i r c ui t s , ha ve ge ne r a l l y a s s um e d w i thout a ddr e s s i ng the i s s ue tha tf e e s a r e a va i l abl e unde r§ 406( b) be c a us e pa s t - due b e n e f its h a v e b e e n c o n s p ic u o u s ly a w a r d e d w ith o u t o b je c tio n b y th e S S A . See , e . g. , Mc G ui r e v . Sul l i v an , 8 7 3 F .2 d 9 7 4 , 9 7 5 ( 7 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ; Straw v. B ow en , 866 F .2 d 1 1 6 7 , 1 1 6 8 - 6 9 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ; Sh oem aker , 8 5 3 F .2 d a t 8 5 9 - 6 1 ; M a cD o n a ld v. W ei nb er ger , 5 1 2 F .2 d 1 4 4 , 1 4 5 - 4 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 7 5 ) . U n d e rth e w e ig h t o f th is a uthor i ty , the S S A , i n i t s br i e f on thi s appe a l , doe s notoppos e a n a w a r d of r e a s o n a b le a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s u n d e r§ 4 0 6 ( b ) . T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o r e a s one d tha tthe a va i l abi l i ty of a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s t o a s uc c e s s f ul c l a i m a ntunde rthe s ubs e que nt l y e na c t e d E A J A m a ke s § 406( b) a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s unne c e s s a ry . B utE A J A f e e s a r e a va i l abl e onl y w he n the gove rnm e nt ’ s pos i t i on i s not“ s ubs t a nt i a l l y j us t i f i e d. ” T hus , E A J A f

e e s a r e not a va i l a bl e e ve ry t i m e a c l a i m a ntpr e va i l s – onl y w he n the C om m i s s i one r ’ s pos i t i on l ac ks “ a r ea sonabl e bas i s i n l aw and fact . ” P i e r c e v . U nde r w ood , 487 U . S . 552, 566 n. 2, 108 S . C t . 2541, 2550, 101 L . E d. 2d 490 ( 1988) . I n de c i di ng the que s t i on be f or e us , w e a r e bound t o c ons i de rthe i nt e ntof C ongr e s s a tthe t i m e tha tthe s t a tut e w a s e na c t e d a nd w e not e tha tC ongr e s s ha s nots ubs t a nt i ve l y a m e nde d § 4 06 (b)( 1)(A ) s i nce the E A JA w as enac t ed i n 1 96 5. T he S up re m e C ou rtWe disagreewith the Seventh Circuit’s holding in Smith v. Bowen , 815 F.2d 1152, 1156 1 (7 th C ir . 1 98 7) (p e r curiam) that only a “ re a so na ble ”tim elim it s ho uld

a pp ly, b e c a

us ethi s ho ldingwa s b a se d o n a

prior vers ion of F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 4 th at di d n ot c ontain t he14 da y tim e limit . Mc Graw v. B ar

nh art , 370 F.Supp.2d 1141, 1154 (N.D . Okla. 2005) 10 co n cl u d ed th atC o n g ress h arm o n i zed aw ard s fo r att o rn ey’ s fees u n d er th e E A JA w i th a w a r ds unde r§ 406( b) by r e qui r i ng the c l a i m a nt ’ s a tt orne y “ t o r e f un[ d] t o the cl ai m antthe am ou ntof the sm al l erfe e. ” G isb rech t v. B a rn h a rt , 535 U . S . 789, 796, 122 S . C t . 1817, 1822, 152 L . E d. 2d 996 ( 2002) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt ed, brac ket s i n o ri gi nal ). W e f i nd that42 U . S . C . § 4 06 (b) autho ri ze s a n aw ar d o f a tt orney’ s f ee s w h e r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e m a n d s th e c a s e to th e C o m m is s io n e ro f S o c ia l S e c u r ity f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs , a nd the C om m i s s i one ron r e m a nd a w a r ds the c l a i m a nt p a s t- d u e b e n e f

its . II . T he di stri ctcourtal t ernat i vel y f ou nd thateven i f § 40 6(b) perm i tt ed autho ri za t i on of att orney’ s f ee s, C ul bert son’ s pet i t i on s w ou l d n otbe grant ed b e c a u s e th e y we r e u n t i m e l y f i l e d p u r s u a n tt o F e d . R . C i v . P . 5 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( B ) a n d M. D. F l a . L oc a l R . 4. 18( a ) . W e a gr e e w i th the F i f th C i r c ui ttha tF e d. R . C i v. P . 54( d) ( 2) ap p lie s to a § 4 0 6 ( b ) a tto rn e y ’s f e e c la im . P i erce v. B a rn h a rt , 440 F . 3d 657, 663- 64 (5th C i r. 20 06 ). T o d et erm i ne w hether the pet i t i on s w er e t i m el y r equi re s 1 deci di ng w hen t he 14 day per i od for f i l i ng the pet i t i on s provi ded i n the rul esWe n otethat th ec laima ntsc ould h aveavo ide d th ec on fu sio n a bo ut inte gratingF e d. R. 2 Civ. P . 54(d)( 2)(B ) into the proce dural framewor k of a f ee a ward under 42 U .S.C. § 406(b) by mov ingthedis tric t c ourt

fo r a n e xten sio n o f t

he14 da y peri od de sc ribe d in

F e d. R. C iv. P. 54(d)( 2)(B ) when the district court remanded their case . See M

cGraw , 370 F.Supp.2d at 1155: With respe ct to future soc ial security actions, in ac corda

nce with the § 406(b) statutory languag e and theFe deral Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court believes that th ebe st p rac tic e , in

e ntr y of a judgment f

or imm e diatee ntr

y of bene fits, wo uld befo r t hePlaintif

f to re qu e st a

nd theCourt to inc ludein t

hejudgment a statement that attorneys fee s may be applied f

or within a spec ified time after the deter mination of Plainti ff' s past due bene fits by the Commiss ion. B e c a us ewearesu

bs tit utingthi s opinion

fo r our prior op ini on in t hisc a se , a

pp e lla nts ’ 3 pe tition fo r re he aringis de nie d a s mo ot. 11 begi ns t o run for a§ 4 06 (b) pet i t i on . B ec ause the C om m i ss i on erhas notobj ec t ed to th e tim e lin e s s o f

th e a tto rn e y ’s f

e e p e titio n s , w e d o n o t a d d r e s s th is is s u e in th is c a s e a n d m e r e ly h o ld th a t th e p e titio n s w e r e tim e ly . Sh epherd v. Apf el , 981 F . S up p. 11 88 , 11 90 (S . D . Iow a 199 7). 2 C ON C L US I ON W e j oi n the un ani m ou s vi ew of the C ou rt s of A pp ea l s thathave address ed the i ss ue t o fi nd that§ 4 06 (b) autho ri ze s a tt orney’ s f ee s w here a di stri ctcourt o r d e r s a r e m a n d to th e C o m m is s io n e ro f S o c ia l S e c u r ity f

o rf u r th e rp r o c e e d in g s , and t he C om m i ss i on eraw ar ds benefi t s on rem and. W e f urther f i nd that C ul be r t s on’ s pe t i t i on f

ora tt orne y ’ s f

e e s w a s t i m e l y . T he r e f

or e , w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd f orpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D. 3