Koelzer v. Colvin
Court Docket Sheet

District of Alaska

3:2016-cv-00087 (akd)

MOTION for Leave to Appear as Pro Hac Vice (Non-Resident) Attorney Howard D. Olinsky. (Pro Hac Vice Admission fee $150.00 paid. Receipt number 097--2318858.) by Veronica Christine Koelzer.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA VERONICA CHRISTINE KOELZER, Case No. 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Plaintiff(s), MOTION AND APPLICATION OF vs. NON-ELIGIBLE ATTORNEY FOR NANCY A. BERRYHILL, PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND Acting Commissioner of Social Security, PARTICIPATE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Defendant(s). FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA To the Honorable Judge of the above-entitled court: I, Howard D. Olinsky, hereby apply for permission to appear and (name) participate as counsel for Veronica Christine Koelzer, plaintiff, (Name of party) (plaintiff/defendant) in the above-entitled cause pursuant to Rule 83.1 (d) of the Local Rules for the United States District Court, District of Alaska. I hereby apply for permission to appear and participate as counsel WITHOUT ASSOCIATION of local counsel because [check whichever of the following boxes apply, if any]: I am a registered participant in the CM/ECF System for the District of Alaska and consent to service by electronic means through the court's CM/ECF System. I have concurrently herewith submitted an application to the Clerk of the Court for registration as a participant in the CM/ECF System for the District of Alaska and consent to service by electronic means through the court's CM/ECF System. For the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum. Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 18 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 4 OR I hereby designate, a member of the Bar of this court, (Name) who maintains an office at the place within the district, with whom the court and opposing counsel may readily communicate regarding conduct of this case. DATE: (Signature) Howard D. Olinsky (Printed Name) (Address) (City/State/Zip) (Telephone Number) (e-mail address) Consent of Local Counsel* I hereby consent to the granting of the foregoing application. DATE: (Signature) (Printed Name) (Address) (City, State, Zip) (Telephone) (*Member of the Bar of the United States District Court for the District of Alaska) Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 18 Filed 04/20/17 Page 2 of 4 DECLARATION OF NON-ELIGIBLE ATTORNEY Full Name: Howard D. Olinsky Business Address: 300 S. South Street, Ste. 420, Syracuse, NY 13202 (Mailing/Street) (City, State, ZIP) Residence: 4435 Swissvale Drive, Manlius, NY 13104 (Mailing/Street) (City, State, ZIP) Business Telephone: 315-701-5780 e-mail address: holinsky@windisability.com Other Names/Aliases: N/A Jurisdictions to Which Admitted and year of Admission: See attached sheet (Jurisdiction) (Address) (Year) (Jurisdiction) (Address) (Year) (Jurisdiction) (Address) (Year) (Jurisdiction) (Address) (Year) Are you the subject of any pending disciplinary proceeding in any jurisdiction to which admitted? Yes No (If Yes, provide details on a separate attached sheet) Have you ever been suspended from practice or disbarred in any jurisdiction to which admitted? Yes No (If Yes, provide details on a separate attached sheet) In accordance with D.AK. LR 83.1(d)(4)[A](vi), I certify I have read the District of Alaska local rules by visiting the court's website at http://www.akd.uscourts.gov and understand that the practices and procedures of this court may differ from the practices and procedures in the courts to which I am regularly admitted. A Certificate of Good Standing from a jurisdiction to which I have been admitted is attached. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information is true, correct, and accurate. Dated: April 20, 2017 s/Howard D. Olinsky (Signature of Applicant) Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 18 Filed 04/20/17 Page 3 of 4 Attachment to Pro Hac Vice Application for Howard D. Olinsky: Court Date of Admission In Good Standing? New York State 02/07/1986 YES State of Georgia 01/23/2014 YES United States Supreme Court 04/01/1991 YES Court of Appeals for 2nd Circuit 11/01/2002 YES Court of Appeals for 6th Circuit 10/15/2013 YES Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit 06/12/2007 YES U.S. Court of Veteran’s Appeals, Washington D.C. 06/12/2007 YES U.S.D.C., NDNY 04/22/1986 YES U.S.D.C., WDNY 01/29/2001 YES U.S.D.C., EDNY 03/21/2003 YES U.S.D.C., SDNY 03/25/2003 YES U.S.D.C., DCT 12/10/2010 YES U.S.D.C., NDFL 10/31/2011 YES U.S.D.C., EDMI 02/25/2013 YES U.S.D.C., WDMI 12/26/2013 YES U.S.D.C., EDTX 12/20/2013 YES U.S.D.C., EDAR 01/03/2014 YES U.S.D.C., WDAR 01/03/2014 YES U.S.D.C., MDGA 01/28/2014 YES U.S.D.C., NDIL 01/30/2014 YES U.S.D.C., NDGA 02/10/2014 YES U.S.D.C., EDWI 04/14/2014 YES U.S.D.C., NDTX 05/15/2014 YES U.S.D.C., DCO 06/18/2014 YES U.S.D.C., SDGA 06/02/2014 YES U.S.D.C., WDWI 07/03/2014 YES U.S.D.C., WDTX 09/15/2014 YES U.S.D.C., NDIN 08/04/2015 YES U.S.D.C., CDIL 09/24/2015 YES U.S.D.C., SDIL 09/25/2015 YES U.S.D.C., EDMO 04/13/2017 YES Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 18 Filed 04/20/17 Page 4 of 4

Certificate of Good Standing

AO 136 (Rev. 10/13) Certificate of Good Standing UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Northern District of New York CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING I, Lawrence K. Baerman, Clerk of this Court, certify that HOWARD D. OLINSKY, Bar # 102297, was duly admitted to practice in this Court on April 22, 1986, and is in good standing as a member of the Bar of this Court. Dated at Syracuse, New York on March 27, 2017 (Location) (Date) Lawrence K. Baerman CLERK DEPUTY CLERK Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 18-1 Filed 04/20/17 Page 1 of 1

DECISION AND ORDER: Docket 1 is GRANTED. The Commissioner's final decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the SSA for an Immediate calculation of benefits. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 05/17/2017. (AEM, CHAMBERS STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA VERONICA C. KOELZER, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:16-cv-00087-SLG NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER Veronica Koelzer filed an application for Disability Insurance Benefits ("disability insurance") and Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act ("the Act"), 1 alleging disability beginning November 1, 2013.2 Ms. Koelzer has exhausted her administrative remedies and seeks relief from this Court. 3 She argues that the determination by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner") that she is not disabled, within the meaning of the Act, is not supported by substantial evidence and that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") committed legal errors. 4 Ms. Koelzer asks for a reversal of the Commissioner=s decision and a remand for calculation of benefits. 5 1 The Court uses the term "disability benefits" to include both disability insurance and SSI. 2 Administrative Record ("A.R.") 43; see also Docket No. 15 at 2. 3 Docket Nos. 11 at 2; 1 at 2; A.R. 1. 4 Docket Nos. 1; 15. 5 Docket Nos. 1; at 2; 15 at 21. Alternatively, Ms. Koelzer requests a remand for further proceedings with instructions. Docket No. 15 at 21. Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 1 of 25 The Commissioner filed an answer to the complaint and an answering brief in opposition. 6 Oral argument was not requested and was not necessary to the Court’s determination. For the reasons set forth below, Ms. Koelzer=s Motion for Remand at Docket 1 is GRANTED, the Commissioner’s final decision is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for the immediate calculation of benefits. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW A decision by the Commissioner to deny disability benefits will not be overturned unless it either is not supported by substantial evidence or is based upon legal error. 7 "Substantial evidence" has been defined by the United States Supreme Court as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." 8 Such evidence must be "more than a mere scintilla," but may be "less than a preponderance." 9 In making its determination, the Court considers the evidence in its entirety, weighing both the evidence that supports and that which detracts from the ALJ’s conclusion. 10 If the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation, the ALJ=s conclusion must be upheld. 11 6 Docket Nos. 11, 17 respectively. 7 Matney ex rel. Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Gonzalez v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1990)). 8 Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). 9 Id.; Sorenson v. Weinberger, 514 F.2d 1112, 1119 n.10 (9th Cir. 1975) (per curiam). 10 Jones v. Heckler, 760 F.2d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 1985). 11 Gallant v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1450, 1452–53 (9th Cir. 1984). Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 2 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 2 of 25 II. DETERMINING DISABILITY The Act provides for the payment of disability insurance to individuals who have contributed to the Social Security program and who suffer from a physical or mental disability. 12 In addition, SSI may be available to individuals who are age 65 or older, blind or disabled, but who do not have insured status under the Act. 13 Disability is defined in the Act as follows: [I]nability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. 14 The Act further provides: An individual shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy, regardless of whether such work exists in the immediate area in which he lives, or whether a specific job vacancy exists for him, or whether he would be hired if he applied for work. For purposes of the preceding sentence (with respect to any individual), Awork which exists in the national economy@means work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions of the country. 15 The Commissioner has established a five-step process for determining disability within the meaning of the Act. 16 A claimant bears the burden of proof at steps one through 12 42 U.S.C. § 423(a) (2012). 13 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (2012). 14 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). 15 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(2)(A). 16 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4) (2014). Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 3 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 3 of 25 four in order to make a prima facie showing of disability 17 If a claimant establishes a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the agency at step five. 18 The Commissioner can meet this burden in two ways: "(a) by the testimony of a vocational expert, or (b) by reference to the Medical-Vocational Guidelines at 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 2." 19 The steps, and the ALJ=s findings in this case, are as follows: Step 1. Determine whether the claimant is involved in "substantial gainful activity." The ALJ concluded that Ms. Koelzer had not engaged in substantial gainful activity since November 1, 2013. 20 Step 2. Determine whether the claimant has a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments. A severe impairment significantly limits a claimant=s physical or mental ability to do basic work activities, and does not consider age, education, or work experience. The severe impairment or combination of impairments must satisfy the twelve-month duration requirement. The ALJ determined that Ms. Koelzer has the following severe impairments: post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), dependent personality disorder, depression, history of mild traumatic brain injury, probable borderline intellectual functioning, hearing loss in the right ear, and obesity. The ALJ found that the following impairments were not severe: GERD and bronchitis. The ALJ also found that 17 Treichler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1096 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hoopai v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 1071, 1074–75 (9th Cir. 2007)); see also Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir. 1999). 18 Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1096 n.1. 19 Tackett, 180 F.3d. at 1099. 20 A.R. 21. Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 4 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 4 of 25 the following alleged impairments were not medically determinable: chronic gastroenteritis, ovarian cyst, lymphedema, pelvic inflammatory disease, low back pain with pain and numbness of the left leg, left ankle pain and swelling, and arm pain. 21 Step 3. Determine whether the impairment (or combination of impairments) is the equivalent of a number of listed impairments found in 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1 that are so severe as to preclude substantial gainful activity. If the impairment is the equivalent of one of the listed impairments and meets the twelve-month duration requirement, the claimant is conclusively presumed to be disabled. If not, the evaluation goes on to the fourth step. The ALJ determined that Ms. Koelzer does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of a listed impairment. The ALJ specifically found that the § 12.05 – Intellectual Disability criteria did not apply. 22 Before proceeding to step four, a claimant=s residual functional capacity ("RFC") is assessed. 23 Once determined, the RFC is used at both step four and step five. 24 An RFC assessment is a determination of what a claimant is able to do despite his or her physical, mental, or other limitations. 25 The ALJ concluded that Ms. Koelzer has the RFC to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels but with the following nonexertional 21 A.R. 21–23. 22 A.R. 23–25. 23 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). 24 Id. 25 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a) (2014). Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 5 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 5 of 25 limitations: no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds; occasional stooping; avoiding concentrated exposure to excessive noise, unprotected heights and hazardous machinery; and with work that is limited to simple, routine and repetitive tasks with only occasional direct interaction with the general public. 26 Step 4. Determine whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing work performed in the past. At this point, the analysis considers the claimant=s RFC and past relevant work. If the claimant can still do his or her past relevant work, the claimant is deemed not to be disabled. Otherwise, the evaluation process moves to the fifth and final step. The ALJ found that Ms. Koelzer is unable to perform any past relevant work. 27 Step 5. Determine whether the claimant is able to perform other work in the national economy in view of his or her age, education, and work experience, and in light of the RFC. If so, the claimant is not disabled. If not, the claimant is considered disabled. Based on the testimony of a vocational expert ("VE"), the ALJ determined that there are jobs that exist in significant numbers in the national economy that Ms. Koelzer can perform, including: table worker, DOT No. 730.687-182, sedentary; assembler, DOT No. 706.684-022, light; cleaner/maid hotel/motel, DOT No. 323.687-014, light. 28 III. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Ms. Koelzer was born in 1984 and is currently 33 years old. She was raised in both Anchorage, Alaska and Arizona and has resided in Alaska for over a decade. Ms. 26 A.R. 33. 27 A.R. 33. 28 A.R. 35. All jobs are listed as unskilled (SVP 2). A.R. 34. Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 6 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 6 of 25 Koelzer has learning disabilities and received special education services throughout her elementary and high school education. 29 She graduated high school in 2005 at age 20 through the Specialized Academic Vocational Education ("SAVE") school in Anchorage. 30 From 2003 through 2005, when she was in her late teens, her performance in reading, writing, and math testing prior to graduation was consistently "far below" proficient in reading and math and "below" proficient in writing. 31 Ms. Koelzer obtained a driver’s license when she was a teenager in Arizona; she required special accommodation in order to do so. 32 After being assaulted by a former boyfriend on December 11, 2011, Ms. Koelzer suffers from PTSD, depression, and anxiety. 33 The assault perforated her right ear drum and caused facial bruising and mild soft-tissue injury around her neck. 34 Ms. Koelzer’s 29 A.R. 439, 686; see also A.R. 266 (three year Individual Education Program ("IEP"), grade 11, Dec. 7, 2001), 277 (IEP, Sep. 29, 2003). 30 See A.R. 298,301. According to the Anchorage School District/s website, SAVE "is an alternative high school that specializes in working with juniors and seniors who are significantly behind in credit.... Students attend SAVE for three periods, either in the morning or afternoon, after which they attend King Career Center or work at a local business. SAVE specializes in'meeting the student where s/he is.’"), http://www.asdk12.org/aboutschools/save/(last visited Apr. 12, 2017). 31 A.R. 285; see also A.R. 305. 32 A.R. 55–56 ("I got my permit [] in Arizona. They had to do the flash cards for me to—that would show like a vehicle that would say which lane would you turn because I couldn’t do the computer very well.... [in Alaska] I took like a couple of classes for driver’s ed and then I went to that [University of Alaska Anchorage].... Q.... like a prep course? A. Something like that."). 33 A.R. 376–79, 661. 34 A.R. 379. Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 7 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 7 of 25 weight has fluctuated greatly since that time. 35 She is very afraid of being assaulted again. Hope Community Resources employed Ms. Koelzer from 2010 through 2012 in both its Home Health Care program and at its Discovery Center. 36 At Home Health Care, Ms. Koelzer provided individual support services (e.g., bathing, feeding, and toileting) to adults. At the Discovery Center, she provided basic monitoring of children with special needs. Ms. Koelzer stopped working at Hope Community Resources after she accidently gave an individual the wrong medication dose. 37 She has also worked as a cashier at a drug store, gas station, and convenience store and as a fast food employee and day care worker over the years, including while attending SAVE. 38 Ms. Koelzer lives downstairs from her parents. 39 A friend moved into the space with her in order to help Ms. Koelzer with her fear. 40 Occasionally Ms. Koelzer runs errands outside her home, but only when her mother or friend accompany her; otherwise 35 A.R. 543 (290 lbs., Dec. 4, 2011), 532 (200 lbs., Apr. 20, 2012), 526 (315 lbs., Aug. 1, 2012), 499 (230 lbs., Apr. 2, 2013), 423 (348 lbs., Jun. 5, 2013), 685 (364 lbs., Feb, 17, 2014). 36 A.R. 68, 192–94, 200. According to Hope Community Resources’ website, "we are a non-profit organization providing community supports to hundreds of individuals and families who experience intellectual and developmental disabilities, traumatic brain injury and mental health challenges," https://www.hopealaska.org/about-us (last visited Mar. 29, 2017). 37 A.R. 55, 70, 81, 440. The A.R. indicates that Ms. Koelzer left this job voluntarily. A.R. 440, 661. 38 A.R. 200, 191–93, 277, 293, 321, 350. 39 A.R. 67. 40 A.R. 220, 227, 232. Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 8 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 8 of 25 she typically does not leave the house. 41 Ms. Koelzer stays up through the night—out of fear that her ex-boyfriend or others will find and hurt her—and sleeps during the day. 42 Mr. Koelzer claims disability due to a combination of impairments that includes: intellectual disability, post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), depression, anxiety, dependent personality disorder, history of a mild traumatic brain injury, hearing loss in her right ear, and obesity. 43 Her date of last insured is December 31, 2017. 44 The ALJ hearing was held on April 3, 2014; Ms. Koelzer was represented by counsel at that hearing. 45 The ALJ’s decision was issued on June 19, 2014, and found that Ms. Koelzer was not disabled from November 1, 2013 through the date of the decision. 46 The Appeals Council declined to review the ALJ’s disability determination on February 26, 2016. 47 As such, the ALJ’s decision is the final decision of the Social Security Administration ("SSA"). 48 Ms. Koelzer filed her complaint seeking judicial review with this Court on April 28, 2016; 49 she is represented by counsel in this appeal. 41 A.R. 46, 54, 57–59, 221, 223–24, 226, 233, 235, 237. 42 A.R. 47–48, 232, 236, 226, 440. 43 Docket No. 15 at 2. Ms. Koelzer asserted at the ALJ hearing that she also suffered from chronic diarrhea and gastroenteritis, GERD, pelvic inflammatory disease, ovarian cyst, peripheral edema, lymphedema, and recurrent attacks of bronchitis and respiratory infections. A.R. 45. 44 A.R. 76. 45 A.R. 43. 46 A.R. 35. 47 A.R. 1. 48 Brewes v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 682 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 2012). 49 Docket Nos. 1; 15. Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 9 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 9 of 25 IV. DISCUSSION Ms. Koelzer argues that the ALJ erred in: (1) determining that her intellectual disability does not meet or equal the criteria in § 12.05(C) – Intellectual Disability Listing; (2) discrediting her testimony; (3) discrediting her mother’s testimony; and (4) relying on the VE’s testimony because the VE’s opinions were based on an RFC that was not supported by substantial evidence. 50 The Commissioner asserts that the ALJ did not err in any of these respects. (1) Section 12.05(C) Listing Intellectual disability is a diagnostic category under § 12.00 – Mental Disorders that can automatically qualify a claimant as unable to pursue substantial gainful employment and therefore deemed disabled under step three of the disability analysis. 51 Under the applicable regulation in effect at the relevant time, an Intellectual Disability under § 12.05 required the following: Intellectual disability refers to significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning with deficits in adaptive functioning initially manifested during the development period; i.e., the evidence demonstrates or supports onset of the impairment before age 22. The required level of severity for this disorder is met when the requirements in A, B, C, or D are satisfied. A. Mental incapacity evidenced by dependence upon others for personal needs (e.g., toileting, eating, dressing, or bathing) and inability to follow directions, such that the use of standardized measures of functioning is precluded; 50 Docket No. 15 at 10, 16, 19, 20. 51 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.00(A) (2014). The 12-month durational requirement must also be met. Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 10 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 10 of 25 OR B. A valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 59 or less; OR C. A valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70 and a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant work-related limitation of function; OR D. A valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70, resulting in at least two of the following: 1. Marked restriction of activities of daily living; or 2. Marked difficulties in maintaining social functioning; or 3. Marked difficulties in maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace; or 4. Repeated episodes of decompensation, each of extended duration. 52 Unlike other diagnostic categories within § 12.00, the applicable version of § 12.05 required a claimant to satisfy "both the introductory paragraph and any one of the four sets of criteria" (i.e., Paragraphs A–D). 53 Paragraph C is the subsection at issue in this case. 54 The record includes a diagnosis of intellectual disability dated February 17, 2014 by Nan Truit, Ph.D., that on its face would appear to meet the requirements of Paragraph C. 55 However, the ALJ, after analysis, concluded that Dr. Truit’s diagnosis was 52 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.05 (2014). 53 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.00(A) (2014). 54 Id. 55 A.R. 684–94 Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 11 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 11 of 25 "unsupported by the evidence as a whole," and rejected it. 56 On appeal, Ms. Koelzer argues that the ALJ improperly rejected Dr. Truit’s diagnosis that Ms. Koelzer met the requirements of an Intellectual Disability diagnosis. Dr. Truit met with Ms. Koelzer in February 2014 for a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation. 57 Dr. Truit interviewed Ms. Koelzer and her mother, reviewed medical records related to the assault in December 2011, and reviewed Ms. Koelzer’s school records. She also conducted a battery of assessments on Ms. Koelzer. 58 The doctor noted a possibility of secondary gain, but explicitly found that validity of the testing had been assessed and determined to be valid. 59 Dr. Truit administered numerous tests to Ms. Koelzer, including the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition ("WAIS-IV"), the Rey Complex Figure Test and Recognition Trial, the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task ("WCST"), Conners’ Continuous Performance Test II ("Conners’ CPT II"), the Digit Vigilance Test ("DVT"), the Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale ("PDS"), and Beck’s Depression Inventory, Validity, and Pain Patient Profile ("P3"). Within the WAIS-IV, Ms. Koelzer was administered ten subtests including: verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory, processing speed, Full Scale 56 A.R. 25, 33. 57 A.R. 685; see also A.R. 435, 667. 58 A.R. 694. 59 A.R. 687. On this topic, the regulation states, "the narrative report that accompanies the test results should comment on whether the IQ scores are considered valid and consistent with the developmental history and degree of functional limitations." 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.00(D)(6)(a). Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 12 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 12 of 25 Intelligence Quotient ("FSIQ"), and general ability. The FSIQ incorporates the ten subtest scores and Dr. Truit indicates that it "is considered the most representative estimate of global intellectual functioning." 60 Ms. Koelzer attained a composite FSIQ score of 67. 61 Dr. Truit opined that overall, Ms. Koelzer’s test results place her general cognitive ability in the "extremely low range of intellectual functioning" and "her overall thinking and reasoning abilities exceed those of only approximately 1% of individuals her age." 62 To assess trauma and characterological development, Dr. Truit administered the PDS to evaluate for PTSD. Ms. Koelzer met all the criteria for PTSD; test results showed a severe symptom rating and level of impairment. 63 Dr. Truit’s ultimate diagnostic impressions were that "all indications are that [Ms. Koelzer] meets criteria for the DSM-5 diagnosis of intellectual disability and that this cognitive pattern is pervasive [and] has been present since at least Kindergarten." Her other diagnostic impressions included PTSD, persistent depressive disorder with anxious distress, obesity, and rapid elimination of bowel. She opined that Ms. Koelzer "generally achieved a 4th grade education" according to the school records she reviewed, the most recent of which was when Ms. Koelzer was 20 years old and receiving special education services. 64 60 A.R. 689. 61 Dr. Truit’s report indicates that she did not find any IQ scores in Ms. Koelzer’s school records. However, ASD school records contain a notation that when Ms. Koelzer was 20 years old, she attained an IQ Composite score of 77 on the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test. A.R. 301. 62 A.R. 689. 63 A.R. 693. 64 A.R. 694. Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 13 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 13 of 25 Dr. Truit also opined that Ms. Koelzer was unable to work outside the home because she was "paralyzed by her symptoms of PTSD." The doctor added, "[i]t should be emphasized that Ms. Koelzer is not mentally able to seek employment at this time." She stated that Ms. Koelzer may be able to return to work—"[w]hen [Ms. Koelzer] is well enough to look for work"—with the assistance of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. 65 The ALJ gave Dr. Truit’s opinion that Ms. Koelzer was presently unable to work "no weight" because he did not find "her assessment to be a reasonable interpretation of [Ms. Koelzer’s] true functioning." 66 Instead, the ALJ indicated he would accord "great weight" to the assessment of Wandal Winn, M.D., the State agency consultant. 67 Dr. Winn did not treat or examine Ms. Koelzer, but formulated his opinion based on his review of some—but not all—of Ms. Koelzer’s medical and school records. 68 Based on that limited review, Dr. Winn diagnosed Ms. Koelzer with a non-severe hearing loss, as well as severe anxiety and personality disorders. 69 His report is silent as to any intellectual disability. His records review was done prior to Dr. Truit’s evaluation; hence, he could not 65 A.R. 695. 66 A.R. 33. 67 A.R. 32. 68 Dr. Winn’s only identifies the Paradise Valley School District records, and not the Anchorage School District records, as included within his review. See A.R. 78. Ms. Koelzer attended high school in Arizona in 11th grade. The records from Arizona provide only limited information regarding Ms. Koelzer’s educational deficits. They do include a transition plan for Ms. Koelzer in which she would coordinate with the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation upon completion of high school. A.R. 261; see also A.R. 273. 69 A.R. 80. Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 14 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 14 of 25 have been aware of it at the time of his review. He did review Dr. Campbell’s report on the mental status examination he performed of Ms. Koelzer, but did not comment on the fact that Dr. Campbell notes that Ms. Koelzer exhibited cognitive defects at that examination or that Dr. Campbell opined that "[i]t would be helpful to obtain school records and psychological testing." 70 As noted above, the ALJ explicitly rejected Dr. Truit’s opinion that Ms. Koelzer met the DSM-5 criteria for intellectually disability. The ALJ stated that Dr. Truit’s "diagnosis [wa]s not consistent with other evidence in the record."71 He reasoned that no treating source had "suggested that [Ms. Koelzer] has an intellectual disability or made reference to obvious signs of below average intelligence... [and that] no clinical evidence of cognitive limitations" existed in Ms. Koelzer’s treatment records. 72 He further noted that Dr. Truit’s statement that Ms. Koelzer "had not been previously diagnosed with mild mental retardation and had no IQ scores in her academic records was not accurate." He referenced the higher IQ score of 77 noted in the school records from January 14, 2005. 73 The ALJ also maintained that neither Dr. Campbell nor Dr. Donovan had mentioned a possibility of intellectual disability, yet they had each recently evaluated or treated Ms. Koelzer. 74 The ALJ also found that Dr. Truit’s statement that Ms. Koelzer was 70 A.R. 442. 71 A.R. 23. 72 A.R. 24. 73 A.R. 24. See A.R. 301 (Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test with IQ composite score of 77). In 2005, Ms. Koelzer was 20 years old. 74 A.R. 24. The ALJ did not comment on the fact that Dr. Campbell noted cognitive deficits when he examined Ms. Koelzer, and had opined that psychological testing would be helpful. Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 15 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 15 of 25 "‘currently’ not functioning as expected for her age, level of education, and former functioning" did not satisfy the introductory paragraph to Listing 12.05, which requires that a claimant’s "deficits in adaptive functioning initially manifested during the development period prior to age 22." 75 "Regardless of its source, [the SSA] will evaluate every medical opinion [it] receive[s]." 76 Medical opinions come from three types of sources: those who treat the claimant; those who examine but do not treat the claimant; and those who neither examine nor treat the claimant. "As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating source than to the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant."77 And the opinion of an examining physician "is, in turn, entitled to greater weight that the opinion of a nonexamining physician." 78 Moreover, "[a]s is the case with the opinion of a treating physician, the Commissioner must provide'clear and convincing’ reasons for rejecting the uncontradicted opinion of an examining physician." 79 Here, Dr. Truit was an examining source when she conducted the neuropsychological evaluation of Ms. Koelzer and diagnosed Ms. Koelzer with an The ALJ also did not comment on the fact that Dr. Donovan’s records indicated that she intended to obtain such testing. See A.R. 442. 75 A.R. 24. The ALJ did not reference Dr. Truit’s statement in her report that Ms. Koelzer’s diagnosis of Intellectual Disability "has been present since at least Kindergarten." A.R. 694. 76 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (2014). 77 Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995)). 78 Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. 79 Id. Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 16 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 16 of 25 intellectual disability. That opinion was not contradicted by any other doctor’s opinion. In fact, no other health care provider evaluated that specific issue. Therefore, Ninth Circuit authority requires that the Commissioner provide clear and convincing evidence before rejecting Dr. Truit’s opinion. 80 When weighing a medical opinion, including that of an examining source, the ALJ must consider the extent to which the opinion is supported by relevant evidence, such as medical signs and laboratory results; the extent to which an opinion is consistent with other opinions and evidence in the record; whether the opinion is within the source’s area of specialization; and other factors such as the medical source’s degree of familiarity with the SSA’s disability process and with other information in the claimant’s record. 81 Here, the Court finds that the ALJ erred in rejecting the entirety of Dr. Truit’s neurological evaluation, including the extensive objective medical evidence contained within it and the doctor’s professional opinions as a specialist. As detailed above, Dr. Truit conducted a battery of tests on Ms. Koelzer. The results of these tests are objective medical evidence that the ALJ must consider. Among these test results is Ms. Koelzer’s FSIQ score of 67. This score falls directly within the definitional range to qualify as intellectual disability under § 12.05(C), as it is a "valid verbal, performance, or full scale IQ of 60 through 70."82 80 Id. at 831 (citations omitted). 81 See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527). 82 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.05(C), (D). Although a higher IQ test score is referenced in the school records, it is simply a notation in the record that a short-form IQ test had been administered to Ms. Koelzer when she was 20 years old. No additional test results or psychologist’s report is included with respect to that test. Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 17 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 17 of 25 The ALJ failed to provide any reason, much less clear and convincing reasons, for rejecting the IQ test score as determined by Dr. Truit. Indeed, on appeal, the Commissioner acknowledges that Ms. Koelzer met the valid IQ score requirement of 60 through 70 under § 12.05(C). 83 An Intellectual Disability Listing under § 12.05(C) also requires a finding of "a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant work-related limitation of function." On this point, Dr. Truit opined that Ms. Koelzer’s PTSD constituted such a limitation. Such an opinion is amply supported not only by Dr. Truit’s testing of Ms. Koelzer to confirm the severity of her PTSD, but also by many other records in the file. For example, Dr. Campbell diagnosed Ms. Koelzer with PTSD in his mental status examination, 84 and Anchorage Neighborhood Health Center records contain multiple 83 Docket No. 17 at 12. The Court also observes that many of the ALJ’s findings on the extent of Ms. Koelzer’s cognitive deficits are inconsistent with the record. For example, the ALJ states that the mental status examiner, William Campbell, M.D. "[r]eported that the claimant had poor memory, but otherwise reported that the claimant’s mental status examination results were fair to good," and he "did not include a diagnosis of intellectual disability in his report." A.R. 24. But in fact, Dr. Campbell did not address intellectual capacity at all, other than to specifically find that Ms. Koelzer "has some [cognitive] deficits on examination," and that it "would be helpful to obtain school records and psychological testing." A.R. 24. Likewise, the ALJ stated that "nothing in the treatment notes" of Cleary Donovan, PSyD, Ms. Koelzer’s treating psychologist, "would suggest cognitive limitations consistent with intellectual disability." A.R. 24. But Dr. Donovan’s assessment notes of March 27, 2014 state an intention to administer the Montreal Cognitive Assessment ("MoCA") "to screen for possible cognitive impairment." A.R. 660. In that regard, the time period to submit additional records to the ALJ expired on April 10, 2014. Consequently, it would be unlikely that any additional testing results could have been submitted to the ALJ by that time, if such testing was done. 84 A.R. 442. Dr. Winn found Ms. Koelzer had a severe "anxiety disorder," consisting of "recurrent and intrusive recollections of a traumatic experience, which are a source of marked distress." A.R. 80. But he then opines that Ms. Koelzer’s fear of her ex-boyfriend is reasonable, "and she could address it to some significant degree by seeking work outside of Alaska." A.R. 80. Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 18 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 18 of 25 references to the diagnosis and treatment of PTSD. 85 The records also reflect that Ms. Koelzer had received counselling at UAA "to address her reported assault in 2011." 86 The record also contains records of the emergency treatment that Ms. Koelzer received immediately after assault. 87 Other evidence in the record also supports the limitations of function created by Ms. Koelzer’s PTSD: Ms. Koelzer rarely leaves her home and when she does she is accompanied by a family member or friend. Ms. Koelzer stays up all night and sleeps during the day when her family is awake because she is more afraid that she will again be physically harmed when it is dark outside. Her ability to focus and remember are also considerably impaired. The ALJ determined that Ms. Koelzer’s PTSD constitutes a severe impairment under step two of the disability analysis. But in his step three analysis, the ALJ failed to address the PTSD at all. Indeed, in that analysis, he does not appear to directly reject Dr. Truit’s opinion that the PTSD constitutes a significant work-related limitation of function at the present time. In his step three analysis, the ALJ failed to present virtually any evidence, let alone clear and convincing evidence in the record as a whole, which that would support his rejection of this component of the Paragraph C analysis. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ erred in rejecting Dr. Truit’s opinion that PTSD imposes an additional and significant work-related limitation on Ms. Koelzer’s function. 85 See, e.g., A.R. 665, 661, 659–60. 86 A.R. 435. 87 A.R. 376–79. Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 19 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 19 of 25 In addition to meeting the requirements of Paragraph C, a claimant must also meet the introductory paragraph’s requirement of the 12.05 Listing: The evidence must demonstrate or support onset of the impairment in intellectual functioning before age 22. On this topic, Dr. Truit opined that Ms. Koelzer’s intellectual disability had been present "since at least Kindergarten." 88 The ALJ’s report does not reference this important statement from Dr. Truit’s report at all. Rather, the ALJ cites to another portion of the report, which states: "Dr. Truit reported that the claimant is'currently’ not functioning as expected for her age, level of education, and former functioning." 89 From this, the ALJ concludes that "[t]he evidence does not reveal deficits in adaptive functioning consistent with a diagnosis of intellectual disability." 90 Based on this statement, it appears that, at least implicitly, the ALJ reads the § 12.05(C) regulation to mean that the second requirement of Paragraph C—that there exists a physical or other mental impairment imposing an additional and significant work-related limitation of function—must also have been manifested prior to age 22. 91 The Court does not read the regulation in that manner. Rather, the introductory clause to the listing only requires that "deficits in adaptive functioning" be initially manifested during the developmental period; it does not specify when the separate and additional severe impairment set out in Paragraph C must arise. 88 A.R. 694. 89 A.R. 24, 692. 90 A.R. 25. 91 Cf. DSM-5 at page 38 ("To meet diagnostic criteria for intellectual disability, the deficits in adaptive functioning must be directly related to the intellectual impairments described in [intellectual function.]). The DSM-5 definition of Intellectual Disability does not appear to contain a set of criteria similar to Paragraph C of the applicable SSA regulation. Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 20 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 20 of 25 Moreover, the regulations specifically acknowledge that a claimant’s "level of functioning may vary considerably over time." 92 Here, there are extensive school records that support Dr. Truit’s opinion that Ms. Koelzer’s longstanding cognitive challenges have impacted her adaptive functioning "since at least Kindergarten." Notably, in 2004, Ms. Koelzer’s school achievement performance was considerably lower than her IQ result in school testing at that time. 93 As Dr. Truit notes, Ms. Koelzer "has a history of special education services beginning in Kindergarten.... She generally achieved a 4th grade education according to... test results." 94 Although she also needed special accommodations to obtain a driver’s license while a teen, there have been periods when Ms. Koelzer’s adaptive functioning has been higher prior to the onset of the PTSD, as demonstrated by her previous work history. 95 But the IEPs and academic performance results demonstrate that Ms. Koelzer has faced intellectual challenges from an early age. Most importantly, Dr. Truit’s opinion that Ms. Koelzer’s adaptive functioning limitations arose prior to age 22 was uncontradicted. Under controlling Ninth Circuit authority, when rejecting the opinion of an uncontradicted examining physician, the Commissioner must provide'clear and convincing’ reasons." 96 Here, the ALJ stated that 92 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.00(D)(2) (2014). 93 See A.R. 301. 94 A.R. 694. 95 See, e.g., A.R. 293, 301. 96 Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 21 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 21 of 25 "the claimant’s past adaptive functioning is not consistent with a diagnosis of intellectual disability." 97 The ALJ offered the following reasons for rejecting Dr. Truit’s opinion on this topic: First, although Ms. Koelzer had received special education services, she "is able to read," "competent to handle her own finances" and can write "in an intelligible manner." The ALJ also observed that Ms. Koelzer’s medical records did not "reveal significant limitations in her ability to communicate." The ALJ added that Ms. Koelzer had lived independently in the past, had a driver’s license, and had previously worked at substantial gainful activity. But the ALJ’s analysis misses the mark. Ms. Koelzer had deficits and impairments in adaptive functioning due to her intellectual functioning limitations prior to age 22. Although the ALJ has identified reasons to question the severity of the adaptive functioning deficits prior to age 22, he did not adequately address or respond to the fact that such deficits existed. The controlling regulation only required a showing that the evidence "demonstrates or supports onset of the impairment before age 22." 98 In short, the Court finds that the ALJ erred in rejecting Dr. Truit’s opinion that Ms. Koelzer’s mental impairments meet the criteria of Listing 12.05(C). (2) Remaining Issues In light of the Court’s decision that the ALJ erroneously rejected Dr. Truit’s neuropsychological evaluation, the Court declines to address the remaining issues raised (i.e., credibility finding of Ms. Koelzer’s statements pertaining to the intensity, persistence, 97 A.R. 24. 98 See also Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders, 75 Fed. Reg. 51,336-01, 51,339–40 (proposed Aug. 19, 2010). Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 22 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 22 of 25 and limiting effects of her impairments; according little weight to the lay opinion of Jane Koelzer; and step-five determination). (3) Appropriate Remand A court may remand a disability benefits case to the ALJ for further administrative proceedings or for an immediate calculation of benefits. A reviewing court "retains'flexibility’ in determining the appropriate remedy." 99 A remand for further proceedings is proper when, despite legal errors, the record is uncertain and ambiguous 100 and further administrative proceedings would serve a useful purpose. 101 "Where there is conflicting evidence, and not all essential factual issues have been resolved, a remand for an award of benefits is inappropriate." 102 In contrast, a remand for an immediate calculation of benefits is warranted when the requirements of the "credit as true rule" are met. Those requirements are met when: (1) the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting evidence, whether claimant testimony or medical opinion; (2) the record has been fully developed and further proceedings would serve no useful purpose; and (3) if the improperly discredited evidence were credited as true, the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled on remand. 103 99 Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1021 (9th Cir. 2014)). 100 Treichler v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1104 (9th Cir. 2014). 101 Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 495 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1020); see also Burrell, 775 F.3d at 1141. 102 Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 496 (citing Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1101). 103 Id. at 494 (citing Treichler, 775 F.3d at 1105; Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1020). Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 23 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 23 of 25 Here, the Court has found that the ALJ improperly rejected the objective medical evidence within Dr. Truit’s neuropsychological examination, as well as her diagnosis and uncontradicted opinions as a specialist. "[T]he SSA has recognized that'[s]tandardized intelligence test results are essential to the adjudication of all cases of intellectual disability,’" such that an IQ test score "can be the deciding factor in a determination of intellectual disability." 104 The Court finds that there are no outstanding issues and that the administrative record is fully developed. Once the discredited evidence as set forth in Dr. Truit’s evaluation is credited as true, the ALJ would be required to find the claimant disabled on remand. Ms. Koelzer conclusively meets the definition of criteria (C) in § 12.05—she had an FSIQ of 67, with demonstrated adaptive functioning deficits initially manifested prior to age 22, as well as severe PTSD that imposes an additional and significant work-related limitation of function. Thus, a remand for an immediate calculation of benefits is appropriate in this case. V. CONCLUSION The Court, having carefully reviewed the administrative record, finds that the ALJ’s determinations are not free from legal error and his decision to deny benefits is not supported by substantial evidence. The Court finds that Ms. Koelzer satisfies the criteria for Listing 12.05 and is therefore disabled as defined under the Act. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Docket 1 is GRANTED. The Commissioner’s final decision is 104 Garcia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 768 F.3d 925, 931 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, § 12.00(D)(6)(b)). Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 24 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 24 of 25 VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the SSA for an immediate calculation of benefits. DATED this 17th day of May, 2017 at Anchorage, Alaska./s/Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Koelzer v. Berryhill, 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Decision and Order Page 25 of 25 Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 20 Filed 05/17/17 Page 25 of 25

JUDGMENT: THAT the Commissioner's final decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for an immediate calculation of benefits. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 05/18/2017. (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/30/2017: # (1) Judgment w/atty fees and costs. NEF regenerated.) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/12/2018: # (2) Judgment redistributed with attorney fees. NEF regenerated)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA VERONICA CHRISTINE KOELZER, Plaintiff, Case Number 3:16-cv-00087-SLG v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant. JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE JURY VERDICT. This action came before the court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict. xx DECISION BY COURT. This action came to trial or decision before the Court. The issues have been tried or determined and a decision has been rendered. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: THAT the Commissioner's final decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for an immediate calculation of benefits. APPROVED: s/Sharon L. Gleason SHARON L. GLEASON United States District Judge Date: May 18, 2017 NOTE: Award of prejudgment interest, Lesley K. Allen costs and attorney's fees are governed Lesley K. Allen, by D.Ak. LR 54.1, 54.3, and 58.1. Clerk of Court [Jmt2-Basic-rev. 1-13-16} Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 21 Filed 05/18/17 Page 1 of 1

First MOTION for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C Sect. 2412 by Veronica Christine Koelzer.

HOWARD D. OLINSKY, Esq. New York No. 2044865 Attorney for Plaintiff Admitted Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State Street, Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Telephone: (315) 701-5780 Fax: (315) 701-5781 Email: fedctgroup@windisability.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA VERONICA C. KOELZER, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00087-SLG v-NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.-----------------------------------------------------------Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 COMES NOW Plaintiff, by her attorney, Howard D. Olinsky, moves the court for an award to be paid by the Defendant under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 USCS § 2412. Plaintiff may receive an award under the Equal Access to Justice Act because she is the prevailing party, is an individual whose net worth did not exceed two million dollars when the action was filed, and the position of the United States and at the agency was not substantially justified. There are no special circumstances in this case which make an award under the EAJA unjust. Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 22 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 2 This motion is supported by a Declaration of Plaintiff’s attorney, attached time and cost records and an Affidavit and Waiver of Direct Payment by the plaintiff. Executed this August 14, 2017 Respectfully submitted,/s/Howard D. Olinsky Howard D. Olinsky New York Bar # 2044865 Attorney for Plaintiff Admitted Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State Street, Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Phone: (315) 701-5780 Fax: (315) 701-5781 Email: fedctgroup@windisability.com To: Lorna Lil, Esq. Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A Seattle, WA 98104-7075 Telephone: (206) 615-2684 Fax: (206) 615-2531 Email: lorna.li@ssa.gov Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 22 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 2

Proposed Order

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA VERONICA CHRISTINE KOELZER, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00087-SLG-v-COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.-----------------------------------------------------------(Proposed) Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) Before the Court is the Motion of Plaintiff Veronica Christine Koelzer for award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Based on the pleadings as well as the position of the defendant commissioner, if any, and recognizing the Plaintiff’s waiver of direct payment and assignment of EAJA to her counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that attorney fees, expenses, and costs in the total amount of Six Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-Two Dollars and Eighty-Seven Cents ($6,262.87) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) are awarded to Plaintiff. Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). The Court hereby awards EAJA fees, broken down as follows: 1. Plaintiff is awarded $6,243.58 for paralegal and attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); 2. Plaintiff is awarded $19.29 in expenses for Certified Mail for service of Summons and Complaint. If the U.S. Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff’s EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are not subject to offset allowed under the Department of the Treasury’s Offset Program (TOPS), then the check for EAJA fees, expenses, and costs shall be made payable to Plaintiff’s attorney, Paul Eaglin. Whether the check is made payable to Plaintiff or to Howard D. Olinsky, the check shall be mailed to Howard D. Olinsky at the following address: 300 South State Street Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 22-1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 2 Suite 420 Syracuse, NY 13202 So ordered. Date: ________________ ______________________________ Sharon L. Gleason United States District Judge [proposed Order proffer: Howard D. Olinsky; copy to Lorna Li] Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 22-1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 2

DECLARATION of Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. re [22] First MOTION for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C Sect. 2412 by Veronica Christine Koelzer.

HOWARD D. OLINSKY, Esq. New York No. 2044865 Attorney for Plaintiff Admitted Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State Street, Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Telephone: (315) 701-5780 Fax: (315) 701-5781 Email: fedctgroup@windisability.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA VERONICA C. KOELZER, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00087-SLG v-NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.-----------------------------------------------------------Attorney’s Affirmation In Support Of Fees Pursuant To the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 ________________________________________ STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF ONONDAGA) ss: Howard D. Olinsky, affirms and declares as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New York and admitted to the District of Alaska Federal Court Pro Hac Vice and I am the plaintiff’s attorney in this matter. 2. I make this affirmation knowing that the Court will rely upon it assessing any awards under the Equal Access to Justice Act disposed of under 28 USCS § 2412. 3. There are no special circumstances in this case which make an award under the EAJA unjust. Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 23 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 3 4. The Court ordered on May 17, 2017 that the above-entitled case be remanded for a calculation of benefits, under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 5. For the Equal Access to Justice Act, I am requesting an hourly rate of $192.68 for attorney time. See generally, http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000039 U.S.C.A 9th Circuit EAJA Table. If attorney fees are calculated at this rate for 28.2 hours of work performed, they total $5,433.58. 6. I am also requesting $100.00 per hour for 9.1 hours of paralegal time equaling $910.00. I am requesting $6,243.58 for Counsel Fees which includes both attorney and paralegal time. 7. The time accounting is presented to the court in two fashions. The total compensable time spent by all professional staff (Exhibit A); the total compensable time spent by all attorneys (Exhibit B); the total compensable time spent by paralegals (Exhibit C). The attorneys involved in this case are as follows: Paul B. Eaglin, Esq., Howard D. Olinsky, Esq., and Betsy R. Shephard, Esq. The paralegals involved in working on this case are as follows: Shannon Persse, Michelle Callahan, Michael Smith, Vincent Wisehoon, and Tamica Lockwood. 8. I am requesting reimbursement of expenses in the amount $19.29 for Certified Mail for service of the summons and complaint as shown in Exhibit D. 9. All services on this case were rendered by your affiant and my professional staff, unless specifically noted otherwise. The attached records were created and stored in the firms Prevail Database, and are printed out and attached. The itemized time represents hours spent preparing and handling this case for U.S. District Court. Clerical time is not included in this petition or has been zeroed out. 10. Attached is the Fee Agreement duly executed by the plaintiff (Exhibit E). Waiver of Direct Payment of EAJA Fees Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 23 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 3 11. Attached is an Affidavit and Waiver of Direct Payment duly executed by the plaintiff (Exhibit F). With this Waiver, if Plaintiff owes a debt that qualifies under the Treasury Offset Program (31 USCS § 3716), any payment shall be made payable to the Plaintiff and delivered to the Plaintiff’s attorney. If the United States Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff owes no debt subject to offset, the government will pay such fees directly to the Plaintiff’s attorney. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (U.S. 2010). Executed this August 14, 2017 Respectfully submitted,/s/Howard D. Olinsky Howard D. Olinsky New York Bar # 2044865 Attorney for Plaintiff Admitted Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State Street, Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Phone: (315) 701-5780 Email: fedctgroup@windisability.com To: Lorna Lil, Esq. Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A Seattle, WA 98104-7075 Telephone: (206) 615-2684 Fax: (206) 615-2531 Email: lorna.li@ssa.gov Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 23 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 3

Exhibit A All Professional Time

Exhibit A Ledger Koelzer, Veronica Christine Date  Subject Hours Timekeeper 3/8/2016 Files received, reviewed and processed from referral source for Attorney review 0.6 Callahan, Michelle 3/8/2016 Correspondence to Client re: Referral acknowledgment letter 0.2 Callahan, Michelle 3/30/2016 Telephone Call with Client re: Completed debt conference call, explained process 0.4 Callahan, Michelle 4/6/2016 Telephone call with Client re: Additional student loan information 0.2 Callahan, Michelle 4/12/2016 Review decisions and evidence to determine whether to appeal case 1 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/12/2016 FDC prospect packet prepared for Client completion 0.6 Callahan, Michelle 4/12/2016 Telephone call with Client re: Assistance with In Forma Pauperis application 0.3 Callahan, Michelle 4/12/2016 FDC Prospect packet sent via Right Signature for client completion 0.2 Callahan, Michelle 4/12/2016 FDC packet forms returned via Right Signature, reviewed for completion 0.3 Smith, Michael P. 4/28/2016 Review motion for leave in forma pauperis, approve for filing 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/28/2016 Draft complaint, proposed summons, civil cover sheet, and letter to clerk 0.7 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/28/2016 Email Initiating case documents to the clerk for filing/docketing 0.2 Smith, Michael P. 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Unissued summons 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Docket annotation summons issued 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/29/2016 Review Docket annotation re: Summons issued prematurely 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Complaint 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Civil Cover Sheet 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Motion for Leave in Forma Pauperis 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Unissued summons 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/2/2016 Federal Court-Accept Letter-New FDC Filing 0.3 Smith, Michael P. 5/2/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Summons issued (notice only) 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/2/2016 Review Summons Issued (text notice only) 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/2/2016 Download, file, save & distribute ECF re: Order directing service, granting IFP 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/2/2016 Review Order granting In Forma Pauperis status, directing service of process 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/6/2016 Received and processed Issued Summons via USPS 0.1 Callahan, Michelle 5/6/2016 Review Summons Issued via USPS 0.3 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/12/2016 Federal Court-Service of Process-Prepare Service packets USAO, OGC, AG 0.6 Callahan, Michelle 5/17/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: NOA Gary M. Guarino 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/17/2016 Review Notice of appearance Gary Guarino o/b/o Carolyn Colvin 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/17/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: NOA Gary M. Guarino (docket 7) 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/17/2016 Review Notice of appearance Gary Guarino o/b/o Carolyn Colvin (docket 7) 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/18/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: SS scheduling order 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/18/2016 Review Social Security scheduling order, calendar deadlines on task pad 0.3 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/19/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: NOA Daphne Banay 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/23/2016 Download, file, save electronic return receipts USAO, OCG and AG 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/25/2016 Combine and file proof of service via CM/ECF 0.3 Callahan, Michelle 5/25/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Summons returned executed 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/25/2016 Review Summons executed, record answer due date for monitoring 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/25/2016 Review Notice of appearance Daphne Banay o/b/o Carolyn Colvin 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 7/15/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Answer to complaint 0 Lockwood, Tamica 37.30 (Type = Time) and ((Category =) or (Category = Federal Court))    Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 23-1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 3 Date  Subject Hours Timekeeper 7/15/2016 Review Answer to complaint 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 7/15/2016 Download, file and save federal court transcript in eleven (11) parts 0.3 Lockwood, Tamica 7/15/2016 Combine, OCR, and live bookmark Federal Court Transcript (709 pages) 0.7 Lockwood, Tamica 7/15/2016 Preliminary review of transcript-assign Attorney writer 0.5 Eaglin, Paul B. 7/19/2016 Telephone call with Client re: Status update 0.1 Lockwood, Tamica 8/16/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Consent motion plaintiff extension 0 Lockwood, Tamica 8/16/2016 Draft and file Plaintiff's first extension request 0 Eaglin, Paul B. 8/23/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Order granting Plainitff extension 0 Lockwood, Tamica 8/23/2016 Review Order granting Plaintiff's first extension request, update task pad 0 Eaglin, Paul B. 8/24/2016 Telephone call with Client re: Status update 0.1 Lockwood, Tamica 8/24/2016 Review certified administrative record, take notes and organzine facts (709 pgs) 6 Shephard, Betsy R. 8/25/2016 Drafting procedural section, drafting facts 8.5 Shephard, Betsy R. 8/26/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Docket annotation brief event 0 Lockwood, Tamica 8/26/2016 Review Docket annotation brief filing event 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 8/26/2016 Research issues and drafting arguments 6.3 Shephard, Betsy R. 8/28/2016 Senior Attorney review draft brief, make edits, finalize and file (n/c for file) 1.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 9/9/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Notice of substitute Attorney 0 Lockwood, Tamica 9/9/2016 Review notice of Attorney substitution by Carolyn W. Colvin 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 9/27/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Response in opposition 0 Lockwood, Tamica 9/27/2016 Review Defendant's response in opposition to motion (22 pages) 0.7 Eaglin, Paul B. 10/6/2016 Telephone call with Client re: Status update 0.1 Callahan, Michelle 11/11/2016 Telephone call from Client re: Status update, confirmed contact info current 0.2 Persse, Shannon 1/27/2017 Telephone call with Client re: Status update 0.1 Smith, Michael P. 2/9/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Docket annotation Berryhill 0 Lockwood, Tamica 2/9/2017 Review Docket annotation Nancy A. Berryhill substituted for Carolyn W. Colvin 0 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/20/2017 Draft motion for pro hac vice re: Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. 0 Olinsky, Howard D. 4/20/2017 File Motion for Howard D. Olinsky to appear Pro Hac Vice 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/20/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Motion for pro hac vice HDO 0 Lockwood, Tamica 4/21/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Clerks notice granting Pro Hac Vice 0 Lockwood, Tamica 4/21/2017 Review Clerks notice granting Pro Hac Vice application 0 Olinsky, Howard D. 5/1/2017 Telephone call with Client re: Status update 0.1 Vincent Wisehoon 5/17/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Decision and order 0 Lockwood, Tamica 5/17/2017 Review Decision and order remanding for benefits (25 pages) 0.8 Olinsky, Howard D. 5/18/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Judgment 0 Lockwood, Tamica 5/18/2017 Review Judgment in favor of Veronica Koelzer for calculation of benefits 0.1 Olinsky, Howard D. 5/19/2017 Correspondence to Client re: FDC Remand 0.2 Callahan, Michelle 5/19/2017 Federal Court-Remand Referral back to Referral Source 0.3 Callahan, Michelle 5/26/2017 Telephone call with Client re: Explained the FDC decision 0.2 Callahan, Michelle 7/25/2017 EAJA Preparation 0.4 Persse, Shannon 7/26/2017 Continued EAJA Preparation 1.1 Persse, Shannon 7/26/2017 Review Timeslips Finalize EAJA Motion 0.5 Olinsky, Howard D. 8/14/2017 Ready EAJA Narrative, Time Records, Exhibits, Certificate. File per Local Rule 0.9 Persse, Shannon 37.30 (Type = Time) and ((Category =) or (Category = Federal Court))    Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 23-1 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 3

Exhibit B Attorney Time

Exhibit B Ledger Koelzer, Veronica Christine Date  Subject Hours Timekeeper 4/12/2016 Review decisions and evidence to determine whether to appeal case 1 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/28/2016 Review motion for leave in forma pauperis, approve for filing 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/28/2016 Draft complaint, proposed summons, civil cover sheet, and letter to clerk 0.7 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/29/2016 Review Docket annotation re: Summons issued prematurely 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/2/2016 Review Summons Issued (text notice only) 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/2/2016 Review Order granting In Forma Pauperis status, directing service of process 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/6/2016 Review Summons Issued via USPS 0.3 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/17/2016 Review Notice of appearance Gary Guarino o/b/o Carolyn Colvin 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/17/2016 Review Notice of appearance Gary Guarino o/b/o Carolyn Colvin (docket 7) 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/18/2016 Review Social Security scheduling order, calendar deadlines on task pad 0.3 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/25/2016 Review Summons executed, record answer due date for monitoring 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/25/2016 Review Notice of appearance Daphne Banay o/b/o Carolyn Colvin 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 7/15/2016 Review Answer to complaint 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 7/15/2016 Preliminary review of transcript-assign Attorney writer 0.5 Eaglin, Paul B. 8/16/2016 Draft and file Plaintiff's first extension request 0 Eaglin, Paul B. 8/23/2016 Review Order granting Plaintiff's first extension request, update task pad 0 Eaglin, Paul B. 8/24/2016 Review certified administrative record, take notes and organzine facts (709 pgs) 6 Shephard, Betsy R. 8/25/2016 Drafting procedural section, drafting facts 8.5 Shephard, Betsy R. 8/26/2016 Review Docket annotation brief filing event 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 8/26/2016 Research issues and drafting arguments 6.3 Shephard, Betsy R. 8/28/2016 Senior Attorney review draft brief, make edits, finalize and file (n/c for file) 1.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 9/9/2016 Review notice of Attorney substitution by Carolyn W. Colvin 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 9/27/2016 Review Defendant's response in opposition to motion (22 pages) 0.7 Eaglin, Paul B. 2/9/2017 Review Docket annotation Nancy A. Berryhill substituted for Carolyn W. Colvin 0 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/20/2017 Draft motion for pro hac vice re: Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. 0 Olinsky, Howard D. 4/21/2017 Review Clerks notice granting Pro Hac Vice application 0 Olinsky, Howard D. 5/17/2017 Review Decision and order remanding for benefits (25 pages) 0.8 Olinsky, Howard D. 5/18/2017 Review Judgment in favor of Veronica Koelzer for calculation of benefits 0.1 Olinsky, Howard D. 7/26/2017 Review Timeslips Finalize EAJA Motion 0.5 Olinsky, Howard D. 28.20 (Type = Time) and ((Category =) or (Category = Federal Court)) and ((Timekeeper = Eaglin, Paul B.) or (Timekeeper = Olinsky, H...    Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 23-2 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 2

Exhibit C Paralegal Time

Exhibit C Ledger Koelzer, Veronica Christine Date  Subject Hours Timekeeper 3/8/2016 Files received, reviewed and processed from referral source for Attorney review 0.6 Callahan, Michelle 3/8/2016 Correspondence to Client re: Referral acknowledgment letter 0.2 Callahan, Michelle 3/30/2016 Telephone Call with Client re: Completed debt conference call, explained process 0.4 Callahan, Michelle 4/6/2016 Telephone call with Client re: Additional student loan information 0.2 Callahan, Michelle 4/12/2016 FDC prospect packet prepared for Client completion 0.6 Callahan, Michelle 4/12/2016 Telephone call with Client re: Assistance with In Forma Pauperis application 0.3 Callahan, Michelle 4/12/2016 FDC Prospect packet sent via Right Signature for client completion 0.2 Callahan, Michelle 4/12/2016 FDC packet forms returned via Right Signature, reviewed for completion 0.3 Smith, Michael P. 4/28/2016 Email Initiating case documents to the clerk for filing/docketing 0.2 Smith, Michael P. 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Unissued summons 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Docket annotation summons issued 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Complaint 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Civil Cover Sheet 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Motion for Leave in Forma Pauperis 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Unissued summons 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/2/2016 Federal Court-Accept Letter-New FDC Filing 0.3 Smith, Michael P. 5/2/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Summons issued (notice only) 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/2/2016 Download, file, save & distribute ECF re: Order directing service, granting IFP 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/6/2016 Received and processed Issued Summons via USPS 0.1 Callahan, Michelle 5/12/2016 Federal Court-Service of Process-Prepare Service packets USAO, OGC, AG 0.6 Callahan, Michelle 5/17/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: NOA Gary M. Guarino 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/17/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: NOA Gary M. Guarino (docket 7) 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/18/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: SS scheduling order 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/19/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: NOA Daphne Banay 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/23/2016 Download, file, save electronic return receipts USAO, OCG and AG 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/25/2016 Combine and file proof of service via CM/ECF 0.3 Callahan, Michelle 5/25/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Summons returned executed 0 Callahan, Michelle 7/15/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Answer to complaint 0 Lockwood, Tamica 7/15/2016 Download, file and save federal court transcript in eleven (11) parts 0.3 Lockwood, Tamica 7/15/2016 Combine, OCR, and live bookmark Federal Court Transcript (709 pages) 0.7 Lockwood, Tamica 7/19/2016 Telephone call with Client re: Status update 0.1 Lockwood, Tamica 8/16/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Consent motion plaintiff extension 0 Lockwood, Tamica 8/23/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Order granting Plainitff extension 0 Lockwood, Tamica 8/24/2016 Telephone call with Client re: Status update 0.1 Lockwood, Tamica 8/26/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Docket annotation brief event 0 Lockwood, Tamica 9/9/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Notice of substitute Attorney 0 Lockwood, Tamica 9/27/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Response in opposition 0 Lockwood, Tamica 10/6/2016 Telephone call with Client re: Status update 0.1 Callahan, Michelle 11/11/2016 Telephone call from Client re: Status update, confirmed contact info current 0.2 Persse, Shannon 1/27/2017 Telephone call with Client re: Status update 0.1 Smith, Michael P. 9.10 (Type = Time) and ((Category =) or (Category = Federal Court)) and ((Timekeeper = Callahan, Michelle) or (Timekeeper = Lockw...    Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 23-3 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 3 Date  Subject Hours Timekeeper 2/9/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Docket annotation Berryhill 0 Lockwood, Tamica 4/20/2017 File Motion for Howard D. Olinsky to appear Pro Hac Vice 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/20/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Motion for pro hac vice HDO 0 Lockwood, Tamica 4/21/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Clerks notice granting Pro Hac Vice 0 Lockwood, Tamica 5/1/2017 Telephone call with Client re: Status update 0.1 Vincent Wisehoon 5/17/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Decision and order 0 Lockwood, Tamica 5/18/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Judgment 0 Lockwood, Tamica 5/19/2017 Correspondence to Client re: FDC Remand 0.2 Callahan, Michelle 5/19/2017 Federal Court-Remand Referral back to Referral Source 0.3 Callahan, Michelle 5/26/2017 Telephone call with Client re: Explained the FDC decision 0.2 Callahan, Michelle 7/25/2017 EAJA Preparation 0.4 Persse, Shannon 7/26/2017 Continued EAJA Preparation 1.1 Persse, Shannon 8/14/2017 Ready EAJA Narrative, Time Records, Exhibits, Certificate. File per Local Rule 0.9 Persse, Shannon 9.10 (Type = Time) and ((Category =) or (Category = Federal Court)) and ((Timekeeper = Callahan, Michelle) or (Timekeeper = Lockw...    Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 23-3 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 3

Exhibit D Expenses

Exhibit D Ledger Koelzer, Veronica Christine Date  Subject Amount Timekeeper 5/12/2016 Certified Mail Expense Summons and Complaint packets to Defendant's offices $19.29 Callahan, Michelle $19.29 (Category = FC Expense-)    Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 23-4 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 2

Exhibit E Affirmation and Waiver of Direct Payment of EAJA Fees

Exhibit E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA (ANCHORAGE DIVISION)--------------------------------------------------------------MS. VERONICA CHRISTINE KOELZER, AFFIRMATION AND WAIVER OF DIRECT PAYMENT Plaintiff, OF EAJA FEES v. Civil Action No.: _________________ CAROLYN W. COLVIN, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.---------------------------------------------------------------Ms. Veronica Christine Koelzer, hereby states the following: 1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter. 2. That I have retained Olinsky Law Group as my attorney for the above-captioned matter. 3. At the time that this action was begun, my net worth was less than $2,000,000.00. 4. If my case is remanded by the Federal Court, either by stipulation or order, my attorney may file for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). I understand that the EAJA fees are paid by the Federal Government and do not come from any back benefits owed to me by the Social Security Administration. 5. I hereby agree to waive direct payment of the EAJA fees and assign said fees to be paid directly to my attorney. 6. I understand that my attorney may still petition the Administration for legal fees for his or her work before the Administration that will be paid from my back benefits. As the Plaintiff in this case, I hereby declare and affirm under penalty of perjury that the information above is true and correct. Executed on April 12, 2016. __________________________ Ms. Veronica Christine Koelzer Plaintiff Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 23-5 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 2

Memorandum in Support

HOWARD D. OLINSKY, Esq. New York No. 2044865 Attorney for Plaintiff Admitted Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State Street, Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Telephone: (315) 701-5780 Fax: (315) 701-5781 Email: fedctgroup@windisability.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA VERONICA C. KOELZER, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00087-SLG v-NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.-----------------------------------------------------------Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Petition for Counsel Fee Allowance Under Equal Access to Justice Act 1. This is a memorandum in support of a petition for an award of Counsel Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 USCS § 2412 "EAJA." 2. An EAJA award is available to a "prevailing party" in a case against the Federal Government, including Social Security cases, in the following instances: (a) When and if the plaintiff actually "prevails"; (b) The Government’s position in litigation is "not substantially justified"; (c) Plaintiff is a party whose net assets are worth less than two million dollars; and Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 23-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 3 (d) The case has concluded with a "final order" which is non-appealable, or will not be appealed. 3. Addressing these elements in reverse order, it is clear that the Plaintiff has met the burden necessary to receive EAJA fees. (a) Plaintiff’s net worth did not exceed $2,000,000.00 when this action was filed. (b) After service of the summons and complaint and submission of a brief by the both parties, District Judge Hon. Sharon L. Gleason signed an Order on May 17, 2017 remanding this matter to the Commissioner for a calculation of benefits pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (c) Judgment was entered on May 18, 2017. The Judgment has not been appealed. (d) Plaintiff has prevailed because the District Court remanded the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (U.S. 1993) 4. The commissioner was not substantially justified. As the U. S. Supreme Court has held, "the required'not substantially justified’ allegation imposes no proof burden on the fee applicant. It is, as its text conveys, nothing more than an allegation or pleading requirement. The burden of establishing'that the position of the United States was substantially justified’ … must be shouldered by the Government." Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U. S. 401, 414 (2004). While the fee applicant such as Plaintiff is required to "show" three of the four elements—prevailing party status, financial eligibility, and amount sought—Plaintiff need only "to allege" that the position of the government is not substantially justified. Id. WHEREFORE, because all four elements of an allowable application for EAJA fees have been proven or alleged, petitioner humbly prays that the Court issue an order: Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 23-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 2 of 3 1. Awarding an Equal Access to Justice Act Counsel Fee for $6,243.58; and 2. If the Plaintiff has no debt registered with the Department of Treasury subject to offset that the fees be made payable to the attorney; and 3. Awarding Expenses in the amount of $19.29. I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this August 14, 2017 Respectfully submitted,/s/Howard D. Olinsky Howard D. Olinsky New York Bar # 2044865 Attorney for Plaintiff Admitted Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State Street, Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Phone: (315) 701-5780 Email: fedctgroup@windisability.com To: Lorna Lil, Esq. Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A Seattle, WA 98104-7075 Telephone: (206) 615-2684 Fax: (206) 615-2531 Email: lorna.li@ssa.gov Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 23-6 Filed 08/14/17 Page 3 of 3

Certificate of Service

HOWARD D. OLINSKY, Esq. New York No. 2044865 Attorney for Plaintiff Admitted Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State Street, Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Telephone: (315) 701-5780 Fax: (315) 701-5781 Email: fedct@windisability.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA VERONICA C. KOELZER, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00087-SLG v-NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.-----------------------------------------------------------CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I have electronically moved for EAJA fees with the Clerk of the District Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to: To: Lorna Lil, Esq. Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A Seattle, WA 98104-7075 Telephone: (206) 615-2684 Fax: (206) 615-2531 Email: lorna.li@ssa.gov August 14, 2017/s/Howard D. Olinsky Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 23-7 Filed 08/14/17 Page 1 of 1

NOTICE of Appearance by Nancy A. Mishalanie on behalf of Nancy A. Berryhill

1 BRYAN SCHRODER 2 Acting United States Attorney RICHARD L. POMEROY 3 Assistant United States Attorney Federal Bldg & U.S. Courthouse 4 222 W 7th Ave, #9, Rm C-253 Anchorage, AK 99513-7676 5 Telephone: (907) 271-5071 Fax: (907) 271-2344 6 richard.pomeroy@usdoj.gov 7 NANCY A. MISHALANIE Special Assistant United States Attorney 8 Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 9 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A Seattle, WA 98104-7075 10 Telephone: (206) 615-3619 Fax: (206) 615-2531 11 nancy.mishalanie@ssa.gov 12 Of Attorneys for Defendant 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 14 DISTRICT OF ALASKA 15 VERONICA CHRISTINE KOELZER, Case No. 3:16-cv-00087-SLG 16 Plaintiff, 17 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE vs. OF SUBSTITUTION 18 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 19 Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 20 Defendant. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Defendant in the above-entitled action, without waiving 21 any objection to, inter alia, service, venue, or jurisdiction, hereby gives Notice that Lorna Li 22 withdraws as counsel to the Commissioner of Social Security. All future mailings regarding this 23 case should be sent to: 24 Page 1 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION-[3:16-cv-00087-SLG] Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 24 Filed 08/18/17 Page 1 of 3 1 NANCY A. MISHALANIE 2 Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel 3 Social Security Administration 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A 4 Seattle, WA 98104-7075 Telephone: (206) 615-3619 5 Fax: (206) 615-2531 nancy.mishalanie@ssa.gov 6 You are advised that service of all further pleadings, notices, documents or other papers 7 herein, not filed electronically, may be made upon Defendant by serving the above-named 8 attorney at this address. 9 DATED this 18th day of August 2017. 10 Respectfully submitted, 11 BRYAN SCHRODER 12 Acting United States Attorney 13 RICHARD L. POMEROY Assistant United States Attorney 14 MATHEW W. PILE 15 Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Seattle, Region X 16 s/Nancy A. Mishalanie NANCY A. MISHALANIE 17 Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel 18 Social Security Administration 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A 19 Seattle, WA 98104-7075 Telephone: (206) 615-3619 20 Fax: (206) 615-2531 nancy.mishalanie@ssa.gov 21 22 23 24 Page 2 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION-[3:16-cv-00087-SLG] Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 24 Filed 08/18/17 Page 2 of 3 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that the foregoing Defendant’s Notice of Substitution was filed with the 3 Clerk of the Court on August 18, 2017, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of 4 such filing to the following: Howard D. Olinsky and Paul B. Eaglin. 5 6 s/Megan Moore MEGAN MOORE 7 Paralegal Specialist Office of the General Counsel 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Page 3 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION-[3:16-cv-00087-SLG] Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 24 Filed 08/18/17 Page 3 of 3

RESPONSE to Motion (Non-Opposition) re [22] First MOTION for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C Sect. 2412 filed by Nancy A. Berryhill.

1 BRYAN SCHRODER 2 United States Attorney RICHARD L. POMEROY 3 Assistant United States Attorney Federal Bldg & U.S. Courthouse 4 222 W 7th Ave, #9, Rm C-253 Anchorage, AK 99513-7676 5 Telephone: (907) 271-5071 Fax: (907) 271-2344 6 richard.pomeroy@usdoj.gov 7 NANCY A. MISHALANIE Special Assistant United States Attorney 8 Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 9 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A Seattle, WA 98104-7075 10 Telephone: (206) 615-3619 Fax: (206) 615-2531 11 nancy.mishalanie@ssa.gov 12 Of Attorneys for Defendant 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 14 DISTRICT OF ALASKA 15 VERONICA CHRISTINE KOELZER, Case No. 3:16-cv-00087-SLG 16 Plaintiff, 17 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO vs. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY 18 FEES NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 19 Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 20 Defendant. Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security, files this response to Plaintiff’s request 21 for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 as set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion 22 (Docket #22). The Commissioner has given substantive consideration to the merits of Plaintiff’s 23 24 Page 1 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES-[3:16-cv-00087-SLG] Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 25 Filed 08/18/17 Page 1 of 3 1 request and found no basis to object. Therefore, Defendant has no objection to this request and 2 will defer to the Court’s assessment of the matter. 3 DATED this 18th day of August 2017. 4 Respectfully submitted, 5 BRYAN SCHRODER 6 United States Attorney 7 RICHARD L. POMEROY Assistant United States Attorney 8 MATHEW W. PILE 9 Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Seattle, Region X 10 s/Nancy A. Mishalanie NANCY A. MISHALANIE 11 Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel 12 Social Security Administration 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A 13 Seattle, WA 98104-7075 Telephone: (206) 615-3619 14 Fax: (206) 615-2531 nancy.mishalanie@ssa.gov 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Page 2 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES-[3:16-cv-00087-SLG] Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 25 Filed 08/18/17 Page 2 of 3 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that the foregoing Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for 3 Attorney Fees was filed with the Clerk of the Court on August 18, 2017, using the CM/ECF 4 system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: Howard D. Olinsky and Paul 5 B. Eaglin. 6 7 s/Megan Moore MEGAN MOORE 8 Paralegal Specialist Office of the General Counsel 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Page 3 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES-[3:16-cv-00087-SLG] Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 25 Filed 08/18/17 Page 3 of 3

ORDER: granting Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees [22]. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 08/29/2017. (AEM, CHAMBERS STAFF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA VERONICA CHRISTINE KOELZER, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00087-SLG-v-COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.-----------------------------------------------------------ORDER RE ATTORNEY’S FEES Before the Court is the Motion of Plaintiff Veronica Christine Koelzer for award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (Docket 22). Based on the pleadings as well as the position of the defendant commissioner, if any, and recognizing the Plaintiff’s waiver of direct payment and assignment of EAJA to her counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that attorney fees, expenses, and costs in the total amount of Six Thousand Two Hundred Sixty-Two Dollars and Eighty-Seven Cents ($6,262.87) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) are awarded to Plaintiff. Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). The Court hereby awards EAJA fees, broken down as follows: 1. Plaintiff is awarded $6,243.58 for paralegal and attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); 2. Plaintiff is awarded $19.29 in expenses for Certified Mail for service of Summons and Complaint. If the U.S. Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff’s EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are not subject to offset allowed under the Department of the Treasury’s Offset Program (TOPS), then the check for EAJA fees, expenses, and costs shall be made payable to Plaintiff’s Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 26 Filed 08/29/17 Page 1 of 2 attorney, Howard D. Olinsky. Whether the check is made payable to Plaintiff or to Howard D. Olinsky, the check shall be mailed to Howard D. Olinsky at the following address: 300 South State Street Suite 420 Syracuse, NY 13202 SO ORDERED. Dated this 29th day of August, 2017 at Anchorage, Alaska./s/Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 3:16-cv-00087-SLG Document 26 Filed 08/29/17 Page 2 of 2

MOTION for Attorney Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §406(b)(1) by Veronica Christine Koelzer.

Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State St., Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Phone: (315) 701-5780 Facsimile: (315) 701-5781 Email: holinsky@windisability.com Attorney for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA VERONICA C. KOELZER, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00087-SLG NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT TO v. SOCIAL SECURITY ACT SECTION 206(b)(1) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the plaintiff, VERONICA C. KOELZER, by hers attorneys, will move and hereby does move this Court, for Attorney Fees pursuant to Social Security Act Section 206(b)(1) and U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. This motion is based upon all pleadings filed to date and is supported by Plaintiff's Petition for Attorney Fees pursuant to Social Security Act Section 206(b)(1) and U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) and attached Exhibits filed with this Court on February 22, 2018. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that this motion shall be considered submitted to the Hon. Sharon L. Gleason, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, on a date to be established by the court. . Dated February 22, 2018 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Howard D. Olinsky Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State St., Suite 420 Syracuse, NY 13202 Telephone: 315-701-5780 Facsimile: 315-701-5781 Email: fedct@windisability.com

Exhibit A - Fee Agreement

Exhibit A FEE AGREEMENT - FEDERAL COURT SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL 1. SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION: I hereby employ the attorneys at Olinsky Law Group ("OLG" or "my federal court attorney") to represent me during a federal court review of my Social Security case. The scope of representation consists of appealing a final decision that I am not disabled, which was made by the Social Security Administration ("SSA"), to a United States District Court. Representation may also include appealing an unfavorable decision from a United States District Court to a United States Court of Appeals; however an appeal to a United States Court of Appeals is at the discretion of my federal court attorney. References to "federal court" in this agreement will include representation before a United States Court of Appeals if my case is appealed to that court. 2. ATTORNEY'S FEE: I understand that if my federal court attorney wins my case in federal court, which means that either my case is remanded to the SSA for further proceedings pursuant to sentence 4 or sentence 6 of § 205(g) of the Social Security Act and/or the federal court enters a directed finding that I am disabled, my federal court attorney will petition for an award of attorney fees for work performed at the federal court(s) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). I understand that an EAJA award is paid by the government, does not come from my back benefits, and any award must be approved by the federal court. I hereby assign any court-awarded EAJA attorney fees to my federal court attorney. I agree that any such payment belongs to my federal court attorney. I authorize my federal court attorney to settle the amount of any EAJA fee using his or her professional judgment. I agree to cooperate in any way that I can so that my federal court attorney's full fee is authorized. If my federal court attorney receives an EAJA check made payable to me, I hereby explicitly give authority to my federal attorney to endorse the check with my name and deposit it in my federal court attorney's general office account. I hereby state that my net worth is less than $2,000,000.00. I understand that my federal court attorney may receive the EAJA award as his or her sole compensation for representing me in court. However, I understand that my federal court attorney also has the right to ask the court to award any remaining balance of 25% of my past-due benefits ("406(b) fees") for representing me in federal court. My federal court attorney has this right if the representative, who represents me during remand proceedings, does not collect the full 25% of my past-due benefits during a remand proceeding; and also if (1) my case is remanded pursuant to sentence 6 of § 205(g) of the Social Security Act; or (2) my case is remanded pursuant to sentence 4 of § 205(g) of the Social Security Act and my federal court attorney is unable to collect the authorized EAJA award due to any unpaid federal debt that I may have at the conclusion of the federal case; or if I failed to effectively assign the EAJA award to my federal court attorney; or at the discretion of my federal court attorney. I understand that if the court awards my federal court attorney a fee out of my past-due benefits and also awards an EAJA fee for that same work, my federal court attorney must refund the smaller fee to me. I understand that the SSA will withhold my past-due benefits and will send any approved fee to my federal court attorney. If SSA, through error, fails to withhold my federal court attorney's fee and pays the legal fee to me by mistake (which sometimes happens), I will pay my federal court attorney promptly from the back benefits I receive. If my retroactive payment is released in installments, I agree that I will pay the entire authorized federal court attorney's fee from the first installment. I understand that the total fee could amount to many thousands of dollars. I understand that my federal court attorney may seek the maximum fee this contract allows under the law. My federal court attorney does not promise to minimize either the EAJA or 406(b) fees he or she seeks and/or receives. I understand that if my case loses in federal court, which means that the federal court affirms the decision of the SSA that I am not disabled, my federal court attorney is not entitled to a fee for his or her time spent representing me in federal court. 3. CONSENT TO EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION: I agree that the OLG and any representative(s) that represented me before SSA for the case that is being appealed to federal court may share (1) my contact information, (2) information regarding my case in federal court, including documents filed in court, (3) my SSA exhibit file including all my medical records, and (4) information regarding the status of any remand proceedings. I agree that if a federal court remands my case, the OLG may refer my case to Myler Disability* for possible representation on remand. I agree that the OLG may share (1) my contact information, (2) information regarding my federal court case, including documents filed in court, (3) my SSA exhibit file including all my medical records, and (4) information regarding the status of any remand proceedings, with Myler Disability*. I acknowledge that the United States District Court will issue a written decision on my case, and that decision is a matter of public record which may be published on the internet by case reporting services. 4. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT AND CONSENT TO PROVIDE UPDATED CONTACT INFORMATION: This agreement terminates at the option of my federal court attorney if we lose at the United States District Court. My federal court attorney will mail me a copy of the court's final decision at the last address I provide my federal court attorney. I agree to inform my federal court attorney each time I change my mailing address and/or telephone number. 5. I HAVE NOT BEEN PROMISED THAT I WILL WIN: My federal court attorney has not promised that I will win my case. I recognize that I may lose my case. I am aware that a federal court may take several years to decide my case. This agreement supersedes and replaces any previous fee agreement I may have signed with any attorney for representation at Federal Court. It does not supersede or replace any fee agreement made for representation before the Social Security Administration. Dated: April 12, 2016 Signature: __________________________________ Claimant Name: Ms. Veronica Christine Koelzer Claimant Social Security Number: Dated: __________ Signature: ___________________________________ Howard D. Olinsky, Esq.

Exhibit B - Notice of Award

Exhibit B M7 Social Security Administration Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Notice of Award Office of Central Operations 1500 Woodlawn Drive Baltimore, Maryland 21241-1500 Date: September 12, 2017 Claim Number: HA U WW H N -4 VERONICA CHRISTINE KOE 1505 w 40TH AVE APT 1 SEPILZUW 8 ANCHORAGE AK 99503 Li"Ul; We are writing to let you know that you are entitled to monthly disability benefits from Social Security beginning April 2014. Your Benefits The following chart shows your benefit amount(s) before any deductions or rounding. The amount you actually receive may differ from your full benefit amount. When we figure how much to pay you, we must deduct certain amounts, such as Medicare premiums and worker's compensation offset. We must also round down to the nearest dollar. Beginning Benefit Reason Date Amount April 2014 $ 871.90 Entitlement began December 2014 $ 886.70 Cost of living adjustment December 2016 $ 889.30 Cost of living adjustment What We Will Pay We pay Social Security benefits for a given month in the next month. For example, we pay Social Security benefits for March in April. I Your first check is for $621.00. • This is the money you are due through September 2017. | After that, you will receive $755.00 on or about the third of each month. We are holding your Social Security benefits for April 2014 through August 2017. We may have to reduce these benefits if you received Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for this period. We will not reduce your past-due benefits if you did not get SSI benefits for those months. SEE NEXT PAGE HA Page 2 However, we will withhold part of any past-due benefits to pay the representative. When we decide how much you are due for this period, we will send you another letter.,: vl _ Other Information We are sending a copy of this notice to your representative. The Date You Became Disabled You have to be disabled for 5 full calendar months in a row before you can be entitled to benefits. Your first month of entitlement is April 2014. Information About Medicare You are entitled to hospital insurance under Medicare beginning April 2016. You are entitled to medical insurance under Medicare beginning September 2017. If you want your medical insurance to start earlier, you can choose to have it start in April 2016. To start your medical insurance earlier, you must do the following things within 60 days after the date of this notice: | tell us in writing that you want medical insurance beginning April 2016; AND | pay us $2,096.20 or tell us we can withhold this amount from your check. This amount covers the premiums due from April 2016 through August 2017. If you would find it hard to pay the premium amount you would owe in a lump sum, ask us about other ways to pay the premium. If you choose to have your medical insurance start in April 2016, your current monthly premium will be $l25.00. If you do not choose the earlier date, your monthly premium will be $134.00. We are taking medical insurance premiums due through October 2017 out of the check you will receive around October 3, 2017. These premiums total $268.00. We will deduct medical insurance premiums 1 month in advance. We are deducting past-due premiums from your check. SEE NEXT PAGE HA Page 3 Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Enrollment Now that you are eligible for Medicare, you can enroll in a Medicare prescription drug plan (Part D). To learn more about the Medicare prescription drug plans and when you can enroll, visit www.medicare.gov or call 1-800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227; TTY 1-877-486-2048). Medicare also can tell you about agencies in your area that can help you choose your prescription drug coverage. If you have limited income and resources, we encourage you to apply for the extra help that is available to assist with Medicare prescription drug costs. The extra help can pay the monthly premiums, annual deductibles and prescription co- payments. To learn more or apply, please visit www.socialsecurity.gov, call 1-800-772-1213 (TTY 1-800-325-0778) or Visit the nearest Social Security office. Infomation About Representative's Fees Your representative may ask the court to approve a fee no larger than 25 percent of past due benefits. Past due benefits are those payable through April 2017, the month before the court's decision. For this reason, we are withholding $8,169.25. After the court sets the fee, we will let you and the representative know how much of this money will be used to pay the fee. We will send any remainder to you. If your lawyer wishes to receive a fee for the services he/she provided you before the Social Security Administration, he/she must file a petition with the Attorney Fee Officer at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, Attention: Attorney Fee Branch Suite 805 5107 Leesburg Pike Falls Church, VA. 22041-3255. Section 206(B) of the Social Security Act, as amended, governs fees for services before the Court. Under this section, the judge that issued the favorable decision may also enter an order determining the amount of the fee that your lawyer may charge for the services before the court. If your lawyer wishes to receive a fee for those services, he/she must send the petition for that fee to the court that rendered the decision. He/she should also send a copy of that petition to the United States Attorney's office. Your lawyer may also petition for a fee under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). These awards are paid from administrative funds and, unlike fees under Section 206 of the Act, are not deducted from your past-due benefits. The EAJA specifically provides that where an attorney receives fees for the same work under both Section 206(B) of the Social Security SEE NEXT PAGE HA Page 4 Act and the EAJA, the attorney must refund to you the amount of the smaller fee. If your lawyer is not going to submit a fee petition to the attorney fee officer and/or petition the court for a fee, he/she should notify us in writing so that we may distribute any excess funds we withheld from your past-due benefits. Other Social Security Benefits This benefit is the only benefit you can receive from us at this time. In the future, if you think you might qualify for another benefit from us, you will need to apply again. Your Responsibilities The decisions we made on your claim are based on information you gave us. If this information changes, it could affect your benefits. For this reason, it is important that you report changes to us right away. We have enclosed a pamphlet, "What You Need To Know When You Get Social Security Disability Benefits". It will tell you what must be reported and how to report. Be sure to read the parts of the pamphlet which explain what to do if you go to work or if your health improves. Things To Remember Doctors and other trained staff decided that you are disabled under our rules. But, this decision must be reviewed at least once every 3 years. We will send you a letter before we start the review. Based on that review, your benefits will continue if you are still disabled, but will end if you are no longer disabled. Do You Think We Are Wrong? You are entitled to benefits because of a decision made by the United States District Court. We already told you about your right to appeal the decision made by the United States District Court. If you feel any action we are taking to carry out the decision is wrong, you also have the right to appeal that part of your case. You have 60 days to ask for an appeal. The 60 days start the day after you get this letter. You will have to have a good reason for waiting more than 60 days. SEE NEXT PAGE HA Page 5 Suspect Social Security Fraud? Please visit http://oig.ssa.gov/r or call the Inspector General's Fraud Hotline at 1-800-269-0271 (TTY 1-866-501-2101). If You Have Questions We invite you to visit our website at www.socialsecurity.gov on the Internet to find general information about Social Security. If you have any specific questions, you may call us toll-free at 1-800-772-1213, or call your local Social Security office at 1-855-602-5001. We can answer most questions over the phone. If you are deaf or hard of hearing, you may call our TTY 8 number, 1-800-325-0778. You can also write or visit any Social Security office. The office that serves your area is located at: SOCIAL SECURITY ROOM A11 222 w 8TH AVE ANcHoRAGE,AK 99513-7505 If you do call or visit an office, please have this letter with you. It will help us answer your questions. Also, if you plan to visit an office, you may call ahead to make an appointment. This will help us serve you more quickly when you arrive at the office. S¢u:ia€ Secwdty, Enclosure(s): SSA Pub No O5-10153

Exhibit C - Total Professional Time

Exhibit C Ledger Koelzer, Veronica Christine Date  Subject Hours Timekeeper 3/8/2016 Files received, reviewed and processed from referral source for Attorney review 0.6 Callahan, Michelle 3/8/2016 Correspondence to Client re: Referral acknowledgment letter 0.2 Callahan, Michelle 3/30/2016 Telephone Call with Client re: Completed debt conference call, explained process 0.4 Callahan, Michelle 4/6/2016 Telephone call with Client re: Additional student loan information 0.2 Callahan, Michelle 4/12/2016 Review decisions and evidence to determine whether to appeal case 1 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/12/2016 FDC prospect packet prepared for Client completion 0.6 Callahan, Michelle 4/12/2016 Telephone call with Client re: Assistance with In Forma Pauperis application 0.3 Callahan, Michelle 4/12/2016 FDC Prospect packet sent via Right Signature for client completion 0.2 Callahan, Michelle 4/12/2016 FDC packet forms returned via Right Signature, reviewed for completion 0.3 Smith, Michael P. 4/28/2016 Review motion for leave in forma pauperis, approve for filing 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/28/2016 Draft complaint, proposed summons, civil cover sheet, and letter to clerk 0.7 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/28/2016 Email Initiating case documents to the clerk for filing/docketing 0.2 Smith, Michael P. 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Unissued summons 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Docket annotation summons issued 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/29/2016 Review Docket annotation re: Summons issued prematurely 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Complaint 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Civil Cover Sheet 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Motion for Leave in Forma Pauperis 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/29/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Unissued summons 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/2/2016 Federal Court -Accept Letter - New FDC Filing 0.3 Smith, Michael P. 5/2/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Summons issued (notice only) 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/2/2016 Review Summons Issued (text notice only) 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/2/2016 Download, file, save & distribute ECF re: Order directing service, granting IFP 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/2/2016 Review Order granting In Forma Pauperis status, directing service of process 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/6/2016 Received and processed Issued Summons via USPS 0.1 Callahan, Michelle 5/6/2016 Review Summons Issued via USPS 0.3 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/12/2016 Federal Court-Service of Process- Prepare Service packets USAO, OGC, AG 0.6 Callahan, Michelle 5/17/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: NOA Gary M. Guarino 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/17/2016 Review Notice of appearance Gary Guarino o/b/o Carolyn Colvin 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/17/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: NOA Gary M. Guarino (docket 7) 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/17/2016 Review Notice of appearance Gary Guarino o/b/o Carolyn Colvin (docket 7) 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/18/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: SS scheduling order 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/18/2016 Review Social Security scheduling order, calendar deadlines on task pad 0.3 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/19/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: NOA Daphne Banay 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/23/2016 Download, file, save electronic return receipts USAO, OCG and AG 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/25/2016 Combine and file proof of service via CM / ECF 0.3 Callahan, Michelle 5/25/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Summons returned executed 0 Callahan, Michelle 5/25/2016 Review Summons executed, record answer due date for monitoring 0.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 5/25/2016 Review Notice of appearance Daphne Banay o/b/o Carolyn Colvin 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 7/15/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Answer to complaint 0 Lockwood, Tamica 37.30 (Type = Time) and ((Category =) or (Category = Federal Court))    Date  Subject Hours Timekeeper 7/15/2016 Review Answer to complaint 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 7/15/2016 Download, file and save federal court transcript in eleven (11) parts 0.3 Lockwood, Tamica 7/15/2016 Combine, OCR, and live bookmark Federal Court Transcript (709 pages) 0.7 Lockwood, Tamica 7/15/2016 Preliminary review of transcript - assign Attorney writer 0.5 Eaglin, Paul B. 7/19/2016 Telephone call with Client re: Status update 0.1 Lockwood, Tamica 8/16/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Consent motion plaintiff extension 0 Lockwood, Tamica 8/16/2016 Draft and file Plaintiff's first extension request 0 Eaglin, Paul B. 8/23/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Order granting Plainitff extension 0 Lockwood, Tamica 8/23/2016 Review Order granting Plaintiff's first extension request, update task pad 0 Eaglin, Paul B. 8/24/2016 Telephone call with Client re: Status update 0.1 Lockwood, Tamica 8/24/2016 Review certified administrative record, take notes and organzine facts (709 pgs) 6 Shephard, Betsy R. 8/25/2016 Drafting procedural section, drafting facts 8.5 Shephard, Betsy R. 8/26/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Docket annotation brief event 0 Lockwood, Tamica 8/26/2016 Review Docket annotation brief filing event 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 8/26/2016 Research issues and drafting arguments 6.3 Shephard, Betsy R. 8/28/2016 Senior Attorney review draft brief, make edits, finalize and file (n/c for file) 1.2 Eaglin, Paul B. 9/9/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Notice of substitute Attorney 0 Lockwood, Tamica 9/9/2016 Review notice of Attorney substitution by Carolyn W. Colvin 0.1 Eaglin, Paul B. 9/27/2016 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Response in opposition 0 Lockwood, Tamica 9/27/2016 Review Defendant's response in opposition to motion (22 pages) 0.7 Eaglin, Paul B. 10/6/2016 Telephone call with Client re: Status update 0.1 Callahan, Michelle 11/11/2016 Telephone call from Client re: Status update, confirmed contact info current 0.2 Persse, Shannon 1/27/2017 Telephone call with Client re: Status update 0.1 Smith, Michael P. 2/9/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Docket annotation Berryhill 0 Lockwood, Tamica 2/9/2017 Review Docket annotation Nancy A. Berryhill substituted for Carolyn W. Colvin 0 Eaglin, Paul B. 4/20/2017 Draft motion for pro hac vice re: Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. 0 Olinsky, Howard D. 4/20/2017 File Motion for Howard D. Olinsky to appear Pro Hac Vice 0 Callahan, Michelle 4/20/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Motion for pro hac vice HDO 0 Lockwood, Tamica 4/21/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Clerks notice granting Pro Hac Vice 0 Lockwood, Tamica 4/21/2017 Review Clerks notice granting Pro Hac Vice application 0 Olinsky, Howard D. 5/1/2017 Telephone call with Client re: Status update 0.1 Vincent Wisehoon 5/17/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Decision and order 0 Lockwood, Tamica 5/17/2017 Review Decision and order remanding for benefits (25 pages) 0.8 Olinsky, Howard D. 5/18/2017 Download, file, save and distribute ECF re: Judgment 0 Lockwood, Tamica 5/18/2017 Review Judgment in favor of Veronica Koelzer for calculation of benefits 0.1 Olinsky, Howard D. 5/19/2017 Correspondence to Client re: FDC Remand 0.2 Callahan, Michelle 5/19/2017 Federal Court-Remand Referral back to Referral Source 0.3 Callahan, Michelle 5/26/2017 Telephone call with Client re: Explained the FDC decision 0.2 Callahan, Michelle 7/25/2017 EAJA Preparation 0.4 Persse, Shannon 7/26/2017 Continued EAJA Preparation 1.1 Persse, Shannon 7/26/2017 Review Timeslips Finalize EAJA Motion 0.5 Olinsky, Howard D. 8/14/2017 Ready EAJA Narrative, Time Records, Exhibits, Certificate. File per Local Rule 0.9 Persse, Shannon 37.30 (Type = Time) and ((Category =) or (Category = Federal Court))   

Proposed Order

Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State St., Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Phone: (315) 701-5780 Facsimile: (315) 701-5781 Email: holinsky@windisability.com Attorney for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA VERONICA C. KOELZER, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00087-SLG COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ (Proposed) Order Awarding Attorney's Fees pursuant to the Social Security Act § 206(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) Before the Court is the Motion of Petitioner for award of attorney's fees pursuant to the Social Security Act § 206(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). Based on the pleadings as well as the position of the defendant commissioner, if any, and recognizing the contingency fee agreement between Plaintiff and Petitioner. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that attorney fees in the total amount of Eight Thousand One Hundred Sixty Nine Dollars and Twenty-Five Cents ($8,169.25) pursuant to the Social Security Act § 206(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) be paid. Upon receipt of payment, plaintiff's counsel shall refund the EAJA fee received in this matter to Plaintiff. The check for attorney's fees, expenses, and costs shall be made payable to Plaintiff's attorney, Howard D. Olinsky at the following address: 300 South State Street Suite 420 Syracuse, NY 13202 So ordered. Date: ________________ ______________________________ Sharon L. Gleason United States District Judge

DECLARATION of Howard D. Olinsky re [27] MOTION for Attorney Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §406(b)(1) by Veronica Christine Koelzer.

Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State St., Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Phone: (315) 701-5780 Facsimile: (315) 701-5781 Email: holinsky@windisability.com Attorney for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA VERONICA C. KOELZER, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00087-SLG AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES v. PURSUANT TO SOCIAL SECURITY ACT SECTION 206(b)(1) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ Petitioner, Howard D. Olinsky, Esq., attorney for Plaintiff, Veronica C. Koelzer, moves this Court, pursuant to Social Security Act § 206(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1), for an award of attorney's fees based on the contingency fee agreement between Plaintiff and Petitioner. In support of this motion, Petitioner states as follows: 1. Petitioner represented Plaintiff in a civil action before this court for judicial review of the Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's applications for disability insurance benefits. On May 18, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska remanded the matter to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. Dkt. No. 14 2. On August 29, 2017, an Order awarding attorney's fees of $6,243.58 was Ordered by United States District Judge Sharon L. Gleason, under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Dkt. No. 26 3. Petitioner and Plaintiff entered into a valid contingency fee agreement which stated that the attorney shall charge and receive as the fee an amount equal to twenty-five percent of the past due benefits awarded to Plaintiff and her family if she won his case. A copy of the contingency fee agreement is attached as Exhibit A. 4. Total past due benefits for the Plaintiff $32,677 based on the September 12, 2017 SSD Notice of Award for the period of April 2014 through August 2017. A copy of these orders are attached as Exhibit B. 5. Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), this Court may award "a reasonable fee not in excess of 25 percent of… past-due benefits" awarded to the claimant. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). One- fourth of past-due benefits are $8,169.25. 6. Should the Court award a 406b fee in excess of the EAJA award, the Plaintiff will be refunded the EAJA previously paid in the amount of $6,243.58. 7. Petitioner's win of a remand hearing from this Court has resulted in a finding establishing that Plaintiff is disabled, and, therefore, eligible for benefits. Petitioner has not represented Plaintiff in any other claim, aside from that under the Social Security Act, regarding her disability. 8. The contingent-fee contract between Plaintiff and Petitioner provided that the fee for representation would be 25% of the past due benefits paid to Plaintiff. 9. Plaintiff's attorneys and paralegals logged 37.30 hours representing the plaintiff before this court. The effective hourly rate is $219.01. A copy of the Professional Time is attached as Exhibit C 10. Given the contingent nature of the representation, the contract between Plaintiff and her attorney and the absence of any reasons the award of 25% would be unjust, Petitioner seeks an award of $8,169.25 under Social Security Act § 206(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) which will be reduced by the return of the EAJA fee of $6,243.58. Petitioner does not believe the requested fee is a windfall. Award of the fee requested will mean that Mrs. Koelzer will receive more recovery too, because of the EAJA offset requirement she will receive from Olinsky Law Group $6,243.58. 11. Plaintiff will receive a copy of Petitioner's motion and memorandum regarding the request for attorney's fees under Social Security Act § 206(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff's counsel asks this Court to authorize and award 406b attorney's fees of $8,169.25 that are presently being withheld by the Acting Commissioner. Upon receipt of payment, plaintiff's counsel shall refund $6,243.58 to Mrs. Koelzer, as explained above. February 22, 2018 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Howard D. Olinsky Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State St., Suite 420 Syracuse, NY 13202 Telephone: 315-701-5780 Facsimile: 315-701-5781 Email: fedct@windisability.com

Certificate of Service

Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Olinsky Law Group One Park Place 300 South State St., Suite 420 Syracuse, New York 13202 Phone: (315) 701-5780 Facsimile: (315) 701-5781 Email: holinsky@windisability.com Attorney for Plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ALASKA VERONICA C. KOELZER, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00087-SLG COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________________ This is to certify that I have this day served counsel for the Defendant with Plaintiff's Petition for Attorney Fees Pursuant to Social Security Act Section 206(b)(1) by electronically filing the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send electronic notification of such filing to: To: Lorna Lil, Esq. Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A Seattle, WA 98104-7075 Telephone: (206) 615-2684 Fax: (206) 615-2531 Email: lorna.li@ssa.gov February 22, 2018 /s/ Howard D. Olinsky Howard D. Olinsky, Esq.

RESPONSE to Motion (Non-Opposition) re [27] MOTION for Attorney Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §406(b)(1) filed by Nancy A. Berryhill.

1 BRYAN SCHRODER 2 United States Attorney RICHARD L. POMEROY 3 Assistant United States Attorney Federal Bldg & U.S. Courthouse 4 222 W 7th Ave, #9, Rm C-253 Anchorage, AK 99513-7676 5 Telephone: (907) 271-5071 Fax: (907) 271-2344 6 richard.pomeroy@usdoj.gov 7 NANCY A. MISHALANIE Special Assistant United States Attorney 8 Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 9 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A Seattle, WA 98104-7075 10 Telephone(206) 615-3619 Fax(206) 615-2531 11 nancy.mishalanie@ssa.gov 12 Of Attorneys for Defendant 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 14 DISTRICT OF ALASKA 15 VERONICA C. KOELZER, Case No. 3:16-cv-00087-SLG 16 Plaintiff, 17 vs. DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO 18 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY NANCY A. BERRYHILL, FEES 19 Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 20 Defendant. 21 Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security, files this response to Plaintiff's request 22 for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) as set forth in Plaintiff's Motion 23 Page 1 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES - [3:16-cv-00087-SLG] 1 (Docket #27). The Commissioner has given substantive consideration to the merits of Plaintiff's 2 request and found no basis to object. Therefore, Defendant has no objection to this request and 3 will defer to the Court's assessment of the matter. 4 5 6 7 DATED this 8th day of March 2018. 8 Respectfully submitted, 9 Bryan Schroder 10 United States Attorney 11 RICHARD L. POMEROY Assistant United States Attorney 12 MATHEW W. PILE 13 Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Seattle, Region X 14 s/Nancy A. Mishalanie NANCY A. MISHALANIE 15 Special Assistant United States Attorney Office of the General Counsel 16 Social Security Administration 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 221A 17 Seattle, WA 98104-7075 Telephone (206) 615-3619 18 Fax (206) 615-2531 nancy.mishalanie@ssa.gov 19 20 21 22 23 Page 2 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES - [3:16-cv-00087-SLG] 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 I hereby certify that the foregoing Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney 3 Fees was filed with the Clerk of the Court on March 8, 2018, using the CM/ECF system, which 4 will send notification of such filing to the following: Howard D. Olinsky. 5 6 s/Nancy A. Mishalanie NANCY A. MISHALANIE 7 Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Office of the General Counsel 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Page 3 DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES - [3:16-cv-00087-SLG]

NOTICE of Substitution by Nancy A. Berryhill

BRYAN SCHRODER United States Attorney RICHARD L. POMEROY Assistant U.S. Attorney 222 West Seventh Avenue, #9 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7567 Phone: (907) 271-5071 Fax: (907) 271-2344 E-mail: richard.pomeroy@usdoj.gov Attorney for Defendant IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA VERONICA KOELZER Case No. 3:16-cv-00087 Plaintiff, v. NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. COMES NOW the United States, by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby gives notice that Assistant U. S. Attorney Richard L. Pomeroy now appears as counsel for the United States of America in the above-entitled action. " " " " All future correspondence in this matter should be sent to: RICHARD L. POMEROY Assistant U. S. Attorney Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse 222 West Seventh Avenue, #9 Room 253 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7567 Phone: (907) 271-5071 Fax: (907)271-2344 Email: Richard.pomeroy@usdoj.gov In addition, the government requests that the Court no longer serve pleadings in the above-captioned case on Assistant U.S. Attorney Gary M. Guarino, now the undersigned is appearing as counsel in this case. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, on March 8, 2018. BRYAN SCHRODER United States Attorney s/Richard Pomeroy Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorney for the Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 8, 2018, a copy of the foregoing was served on: Paul B. Eaglin, Esq. (by ECF Electronic Service) s/ Richard Pomeroy Office of the U.S. Attorney 2 Koelzer v. Berryhill Case No. 3:16-cv-00087

ORDER: granting Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to Social Security Act Section 206(b)(1) [27]. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 03/12/2018. (AEM, CHAMBERS STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA VERONICA C. KOELZER, Plaintiff, vs. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Case No.3:16-cv-00087-SLG Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ORDER Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to Social Security Act Section 206(b)(1) (Docket 27) and Defendant's Response (Docket 29), the Court hereby GRANTS the motion. IT IS ORDERED that attorney's fees in the total amount of Eight Thousand One Hundred and Sixty-Nine Dollars and Twenty-Five Cents ($8,169.25) pursuant to the Social Security Act § 206(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) be paid. Upon receipt of payment, Plaintiff's counsel shall refund the EAJA fee received in this matter to Plaintiff. The check for attorney's fees, expenses, and costs shall be made payable to Plaintiff's attorney, Howard D. Olinsky, at the following address: 300 South State Street Suite 420 Syracuse, NY 13202 DATED this 12th day of March, 2018 at Anchorage, Alaska. /s/ Sharon L. Gleason UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Interested in this case?

Sign up to receive real-time updates
Last full docket sheet refresh: 548 days ago. Refresh now
#
Datesort arrow up
Description
1
04/28/2016
COMPLAINT against Carolyn W. Colvin, filed by Veronica Christine Koelzer.
1
Exhibit A
1 Attachment
2
04/28/2016
Civil Cover Sheet.
3
04/28/2016
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Veronica Christine Koelzer.
4
04/28/2016
Unissued summons re Defendant C. Colvin
1
Unissued Summons re Defendant USAO
2
Unissued Summons re Defendant USAG
2 Attachments
04/28/2016
Summons NOT Issued as to Carolyn W. Colvin, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. Modified on 4/29/2016 to correct error in issuance. (Text entry; no document attached.)
04/28/2016
Docket Annotation: The parties are advised that the Summons were issued prematurely. The error has been corrected and Summons have NOT been issued yet in this case. (Text entry; no document attached.)
5
05/02/2016
ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE AND RESPONSE: RE 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plf to complete service w/in 90 days. Clerk of Court to issue summonses. Def to Answer w/in 60 days. (See order for details). Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 05/02/2016.
05/02/2016
Summons Issued as to All Defendants. Orig plus one copy for the Regional Chief Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, the United States Attorney, and the Attorney General of the United States mailed to Paul B. Eaglin for issuance. (Text entry; no document attached.)
6
05/17/2016
NOTICE of Appearance by Gary M. Guarino on behalf of Carolyn W. Colvin
7
05/17/2016
NOTICE of Appearance by Gary M. Guarino on behalf of Carolyn W. Colvin
8
05/18/2016
SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEDULING ORDER: agency record due w/i 60 days of def's appearance; plf's opening brf due w/i 30 days after filing of agency record; def's ans brf due w/i 30 days after svc of plf's opening brf; plf's reply brf due w/i 14 days after svc of def's brf. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 5/18/2016. Modified on 9/22/2016 to create relationship to document #15
9
05/19/2016
NOTICE of Appearance by Daphne Banay on behalf of Carolyn W. Colvin
10
05/25/2016
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Veronica Christine Koelzer. Carolyn W. Colvin served on 5/17/2016, answer due 7/18/2016.
11
07/15/2016
ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Carolyn W. Colvin.
12
07/15/2016
Notice of Lodging Administrative Record
1
Certification Page
2
Court Transcript Index
3
Documents Related to Administrative Process Including Transcript of Oral Hearing, if applicable
4
Payment Documents and Decisions
5
Jurisdictional Documents and Notices
6
Non Disability Related Development
7
Disability Related Development
8
Medical Records Part 1
9
Medical Records Part 2
10
Medical Records Part 3
10 Attachments
13
08/16/2016
Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Memo of Law Soc Sec appeal UNOPPOSED by Veronica Christine Koelzer.
1
Proposed Order
1 Attachment
14
08/23/2016
ORDER: granting Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time 13. Plaintiff shall file her Merits Brief on or before August 28, 2016. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 08/23/2016. (AEM, CHAMBERS STAFF)
08/26/2016
Docket Annotation: For the purpose of tracking the briefing as ordered at dockets 8 and 14, when filing the Opening Brief the attorney shall file the document using the event Motion Miscellaneous Relief and text in the relief being sought. Responsive filings should be filed using the event Response in Opposition to Motion or Response to Motion (Non-Opposition). The reply, if any, shall be filed using the event Reply to Response to Motion. (Text entry; no document attached.)
15
08/28/2016
Opening Brief re 1 Complaint Soc Sec brief of Plaintiff by Veronica Christine Koelzer. Modified on 8/30/2016 to clarify text.
16
09/09/2016
Notice of Substitute Attorney Daphne Banay by Carolyn W. Colvin. Modified on 9/12/2016 to terminate motion and change to notice.
17
09/27/2016
RESPONSE in Opposition re 15 MOTION re 12 Notice of Lodging Administrative Record (Social Security), 8 Order, 11 Answer to Complaint, 1 Complaint Soc Sec brief of Plaintiff filed by Carolyn W. Colvin.
02/09/2017
Docket Annotation: Nancy A. Berryhill, represented by Gary M. Guarino and Lorna Li substituted for Carolyn W. Colvin (acting Commissioner of Social Security) pursuant to FRCvP 25(d)(1) (Text entry; no document attached.)
18
04/20/2017
MOTION for Leave to Appear as Pro Hac Vice (Non-Resident) Attorney Howard D. Olinsky. (Pro Hac Vice Admission fee $150.00 paid. Receipt number 097--2318858.) by Veronica Christine Koelzer.
1
Certificate of Good Standing
1 Attachment
19
04/21/2017
CLERK'S NOTICE re 18 Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Howard D. Olinsky, at docket 18, is authorized under D.Ak. LR 83.1(d).
20
05/17/2017
DECISION AND ORDER: Docket 1 is GRANTED. The Commissioner's final decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the SSA for an Immediate calculation of benefits. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 05/17/2017. (AEM, CHAMBERS STAFF)
21
05/18/2017
JUDGMENT: THAT the Commissioner's final decision is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for an immediate calculation of benefits. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 05/18/2017. (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/30/2017: # (1) Judgment w/atty fees and costs. NEF regenerated.) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/12/2018: # (2) Judgment redistributed with attorney fees. NEF regenerated)
22
08/14/2017
First MOTION for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C Sect. 2412 by Veronica Christine Koelzer.
1
Proposed Order
1 Attachment
23
08/14/2017
DECLARATION of Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. re [22] First MOTION for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C Sect. 2412 by Veronica Christine Koelzer.
1
Exhibit A All Professional Time
2
Exhibit B Attorney Time
3
Exhibit C Paralegal Time
4
Exhibit D Expenses
5
Exhibit E Affirmation and Waiver of Direct Payment of EAJA Fees
6
Memorandum in Support
7
Certificate of Service
7 Attachments
24
08/18/2017
NOTICE of Appearance by Nancy A. Mishalanie on behalf of Nancy A. Berryhill
25
08/18/2017
RESPONSE to Motion (Non-Opposition) re [22] First MOTION for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C Sect. 2412 filed by Nancy A. Berryhill.
26
08/29/2017
ORDER: granting Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees [22]. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 08/29/2017. (AEM, CHAMBERS STAFF)
27
02/22/2018
MOTION for Attorney Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §406(b)(1) by Veronica Christine Koelzer.
1
Exhibit A - Fee Agreement
2
Exhibit B - Notice of Award
3
Exhibit C - Total Professional Time
4
Proposed Order
4 Attachments
28
02/22/2018
DECLARATION of Howard D. Olinsky re [27] MOTION for Attorney Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §406(b)(1) by Veronica Christine Koelzer.
1
Certificate of Service
1 Attachment
29
03/08/2018
RESPONSE to Motion (Non-Opposition) re [27] MOTION for Attorney Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §406(b)(1) filed by Nancy A. Berryhill.
30
03/08/2018
NOTICE of Substitution by Nancy A. Berryhill
31
03/12/2018
ORDER: granting Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to Social Security Act Section 206(b)(1) [27]. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 03/12/2018. (AEM, CHAMBERS STAFF)
Would you like this case removed from DocketBird? Request removal.