context: Although we have never addressed the precise issue of whether SS 406(b)(1)(A) authorizes an award of attorney's fees where the district court's judgment remanding the case to the Commissioner does not explicitly mention attorney's fees, we have noted that the congressional intent behind SS 406(b) is, in part, "to encourage effective legal representation of claimants by insuring lawyers that they will receive reasonable fees directly through certification by the Secretary."
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 853 F.2d 860, 860-61
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that a district court may consider interim benefits received pursuant to 42 U.S.C. SS 423(g
citation_a.sentence: See Shoemaker, 853 F.2d at 860-61 (holding that a district court may consider interim benefits received pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 423(g) in awarding attorney’s fees under § 406(b)). Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that a remand from the district court to the SSA under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), as happened here, is a favorable judgment for the claimant.
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 425 F.2d 1192, 1195
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that a district court may not authorize an attorney to charge fees for representation in Court when the Commissioner has already authorized that attorney to charge fees for representation in administrative proceedings, and declining to reach the Secretary's contention that SS 406(b
citation_b.sentence: Dawson v. Finch, 425 F.2d 1192, 1195 (5th Cir.1970) (holding that a district court may not authorize an attorney to charge fees for representation in Court when the Commissioner has already authorized that attorney to charge fees for representation in administrative proceedings, and declining to reach the Secretary’s contention that § 406(b) does not allow a Court to authorize attorney’s fees unless it renders a judgment on the merits favorable to the claimant).