Roulston v. Social Security Administration Commissioner
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 20 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff is awarded $6,018.00 for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). See Order for specifics. Signed by Honorable James R. Marschewski on May 22, 2015. (hnc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
KRISTI DAWN ROULSTON
o/b/o RANDY LEE ROULSTON (deceased)
v.
PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 10-2134
CAROLYN W. COLVIN1, Commissioner
Social Security Administration,
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On September 10, 2010, Plaintiff, Randy Roulston, appealed to this Court from the denial
of his application for social security disability benefits by the Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration (hereinafter “Commissioner”). ECF No. 1. On June 22, 2011, Kristi Roulston was
substituted as Plaintiff, following Randy’s death.
The matter was remanded for further
consideration, pursuant to sentence four, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on August 12, 2011. ECF Nos. 12, 13.
I.
Background:
Plaintiff filed a Motion for An Award of Attorney Fees Under The Equal Access to Justice
Act, (hereinafter the “EAJA”), on November 2, 2011. ECF No. 14, 15. On November 9, 2011, the
undersigned entered an Order awarding Plaintiff $4,674.76 in attorney fees pursuant to the EAJA,
to be paid in addition to, but not out of, any past due benefits which Plaintiff may be awarded in the
future. ECF No. 17.
On May 5, 2015, Plaintiff ‘s attorney filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 406(b). ECF No. 20. Counsel requests attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in the
amount of $6,018.00. ECF No. 20. This matter is currently before the undersigned by consent of
1
Carolyn W. Colvin became the Social Security Commissioner on February 14, 2013. Pursuant to Rule
25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Carolyn W. Colvin has been substituted for Commissioner Michael
J. Astrue as the defendant in this suit.
the parties. ECF No. 5.
II.
Applicable Law:
Under both the EAJA and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), courts may award attorney fees to prevailing
claimants and their attorneys. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002). A double recovery,
however, is not permitted. When both awards are granted, the attorney must refund the lesser award
to the client. Id. “Thus, an EAJA award offsets an award under Section 406(b), so that the amount
of the total past-due benefits the claimant actually receives will be increased by the EAJA award up
to the point the claimant receives 100 percent of the past-due benefits.” Id. (quotations and ellipses
omitted).
The basis for counsel’s motion, 42 U.S.C. § 406, deals with the administrative and judicial
review stages in Social Security proceedings discretely—“ § 406(a) governs fees for representation
in administrative proceedings; § 406(b) controls fees for representation in court.” Id. at 794. Unlike
the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) does not authorize the prevailing
party to recover fees from the losing party. Id. at 802. “Section 406(b) is of another genre: It
authorizes fees payable from the successful party’s recovery.” Id.
Congress enacted § 406(b) to “protect claimants against ‘inordinately large fees' and also to
ensure that attorneys representing successful claimants would not risk ‘nonpayment of [appropriate]
fees.’” Id. at 805. Recognizing that contingent-fee agreements are the primary means by which fees
are set for successfully representing Social Security benefits claimants in court, section 406(b) calls
for court review of such arrangements as an independent check, to assure that they yield “reasonable
results in particular cases.” Id. at 807. Therefore, even if the contingency-fee agreement is at or
below the 25 percent boundary, “the attorney for the successful claimant must show that the fee
2
sought is reasonable for the services rendered.” Id. at 807.
District courts are tasked with the responsibility of conducting an “independent check” to
ensure the fee award is reasonable. Id. A court should determine whether a downward adjustment
of an attorney’s recovery is appropriate “based on the character of the representation and the results
the attorney achieved.” Id. at 808. To avoid a windfall to a successful claimant’s attorney, the court
should make a downward adjustment “[i]f the award of benefits is large in comparison to the amount
of time counsel spent on the case.” Id.
III.
Discussion:
The court, having reviewed this case in light of Gisbrecht, is required to give primacy to the
contingent-fee agreement. Here, the agreement calls for a fee of 25 percent of past-due benefits or
a flat fee of $6,000.00, the same benchmark percentage permitted by statute. See 42 U.S.C. §
406(b)(1)(A). The court finds that Ms. Gibbons is not responsible for any delay allowing him to
“profit from the accumulation of benefits during the pendency of the case in court,” nor are the
benefits “large in comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case.” Gisbrecht, 535 U
.S. at 808. (Ms. Gibbons alleges to have spent 29.80 hours working on the substance of this matter,
representing an hourly rate of $201.95. ECF No. 17.) The court further finds that Ms. Gibbons
achieved a favorable result for Plaintiff and bore the risk of no payment under the contingency-fee
agreement had Plaintiff not been successful. In accordance with Gisbrecht, the court concludes that
Plaintiff's counsel has met the burden of showing the reasonableness of the fees requested under 42
U.S.C. § 406(b), and is entitled to an award of $6,018.00.
3
IV.
Conclusion:
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), is
granted in the amount of $6,018.00. While we do note that Plaintiff was awarded an EAJA fee in
the amount of $4,674.76, Plaintiff’s counsel contends that she will refund this amount to the
Plaintiff. Therefore, we will award Plaintiff’s counsel the full $6,018.00 fee. Plaintiff’s attorney is
further directed to remit to Plaintiff the smaller fee awarded to Plaintiff pursuant to the EAJA in the
amount of $4,674.76.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of May 2015.
/s/ J. Marschewski
HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?