Lor v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
36
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 5/31/18, GRANTING plaintiff's 34 Motion for Attorney Fees. Counsel for plaintiff is awarded $20,000 in attorney fees under § 406(b). The Commissioner is directed to pay the fee forthwith and remit to plaintiff the remainder any withheld benefits. Upon receipt of the $20,000 in attorney fees pursuant to § 406(b), counsel shall reimburse plaintiff in the amount of $7,002.62 previously paid by the government under the EAJA. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DIA LOR,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-1478 DB
v.
ORDER
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
16
Defendant.
17
Plaintiff brought this action seeking judicial review of a final administrative decision
18
19
denying an application for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Social Security
20
Act. By order filed March 8, 2017, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was granted, the
21
decision of the Commissioner was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.1
22
(ECF No. 26.)
On March 1, 2018, counsel for plaintiff filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees
23
24
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (ECF No. 34.) At the outset of the representation, plaintiff and
25
plaintiff’s counsel entered into a contingent-fee agreement. (ECF No. 34-1.) Pursuant to that
26
agreement plaintiff’s counsel now seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $20,000, which
27
28
1
Both parties have previously consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (See ECF Nos. 10 & 12.)
1
1
represents 22% of the retroactive disability benefits received by plaintiff on remand, for
2
approximately 24.75 hours of attorney time expended on this matter.2 (ECF No. 34 at 5-6; ECF
3
No. 34-2 at 3.) “Defendant has no objection to an award of § 406(b) fees,” provided plaintiff’s
4
award is offset by the attorney’s fees previously awarded plaintiff’s counsel. (ECF No. 35. at 2.)
5
Attorneys are entitled to fees for cases in which they have successfully represented social
6
security claimants.
7
Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under
this subchapter who was represented before the court by an
attorney, the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment
a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent
of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled
by reason of such judgment, and the Commissioner of Social
Security may . . . certify the amount of such fee for payment to such
attorney out of, and not in addition to, the amount of such past-due
benefits.
8
9
10
11
12
42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). “In contrast to fees awarded under fee-shifting provisions such as 42
13
U.S.C. § 1988, the fee is paid by the claimant out of the past-due benefits awarded; the losing
14
party is not responsible for payment.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir. 2009)
15
(en banc) (citing Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 802 (2002)). Although an attorney fee
16
award pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) is not paid by the government, the Commissioner has
17
standing to challenge the award. Craig v. Sec’y Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 864 F.2d 324,
18
328 (4th Cir. 1989), abrogated on other grounds in Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. The goal of fee
19
awards under § 406(b) is to provide adequate incentive to attorneys for representing claimants
20
while ensuring that the usually meager disability benefits received are not greatly depleted.
21
Cotter v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 359, 365 (8th Cir. 1989).
22
The 25% statutory maximum fee is not an automatic entitlement, and the court must
23
ensure that the fee actually requested is reasonable. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808-09 (“[Section]
24
406(b) does not displace contingent-fee agreements within the statutory ceiling; instead, § 406(b)
25
instructs courts to review for reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements.”). “Within the 25
26
percent boundary . . . the attorney for the successful claimant must show that the fee sought is
27
28
2
Plaintiff’s counsel expended an additional 15.25 hours of attorney time in a second action
related to plaintiff’s application for benefits at issue in this action. (ECF No. 34 at 6-7.)
2
1
reasonable for the services rendered.” Id. at 807. “[A] district court charged with determining a
2
reasonable fee award under § 406(b)(1)(A) must respect ‘the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee
3
arrangements,’ ‘looking first to the contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for reasonableness.’”
4
Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1149 (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 793 & 808).
5
The Supreme Court has identified five factors that may be considered in determining
6
whether a fee award under a contingent-fee arrangement is unreasonable and therefore subject to
7
reduction by the court: (1) the character of the representation; (2) the results achieved by the
8
representative; (3) whether the attorney engaged in dilatory conduct in order to increase the
9
accrued amount of past-due benefits; (4) whether the benefits are large in comparison to the
10
amount of time counsel spent on the case; and (5) the attorney’s record of hours worked and
11
counsel’s regular hourly billing charge for noncontingent cases. Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151-52
12
(citing Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808). Below, the court will consider these factors in assessing
13
whether the fee requested by counsel in this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) is reasonable.
14
Here, there is no indication that a reduction of fees is warranted due to any substandard
15
performance by counsel. Rather, plaintiff’s counsel is an experienced attorney who secured a
16
successful result for plaintiff. There is also no evidence that plaintiff’s counsel engaged in any
17
dilatory conduct resulting in excessive delay. The court finds that the $20,000 fee, which
18
represents only 22% of the past-due benefits paid to plaintiff, is not excessive in relation to the
19
benefits awarded. In making this determination, the court recognizes the contingent fee nature of
20
this case and counsel’s assumption of the risk of going uncompensated in agreeing to represent
21
plaintiff on such terms. See Hearn v. Barnhart, 262 F. Supp.2d 1033, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2003).
22
Finally, counsel has submitted a detailed billing statement in support of the requested fee. (ECF
23
No. 34 at 5-7.)
24
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the court concludes that the fees sought by
25
counsel pursuant to § 406(b) are reasonable. See generally Azevedo v. Commissioner of Social
26
Security, No. 1:11-cv-1341 AWI SAB, 2013 WL 6086666, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2013)
27
(granting petition pursuant to 406(b) for $17,893.75 in attorney’s fees); Coulter v. Commissioner
28
of Social Security, No. 1:10-cv-1937 AWI JLT, 2013 WL 5969674, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8,
3
1
2013) (recommending award of $15,084.23 in attorney’s fees pursuant to 406(b)); Taylor v.
2
Astrue, No. 1:06-cv-00957-SMS, 2011 WL 836740, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2011) (granting
3
petition pursuant to 406(b) for $20,960 in attorneys’ fees); Jamieson v. Astrue, No. 1:09cv0490
4
LJO DLB, 2011 WL 587096, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2011) (recommending award of $34,500 in
5
attorney fees pursuant to 406(b)).
6
An award of § 406(b) fees is, however, offset by any prior award of attorney’s fees
7
granted under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2412; Gisbrecht, 535 U.S.
8
at 796. Here, plaintiff’s counsel was previously awarded $7,002.62 in EAJA fees and the award
9
under § 406(b) must be offset by that amount. (ECF No. 34 at 2.)
10
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
11
1. Plaintiff’s March 1, 2018 motion for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), (ECF No.
12
34), is granted;
13
2. Counsel for plaintiff is awarded $20,000 in attorney fees under § 406(b). The
14
Commissioner is directed to pay the fee forthwith and remit to plaintiff the remainder any
15
withheld benefits; and
16
3. Upon receipt of the $20,000 in attorney fees pursuant to § 406(b), counsel shall
17
reimburse plaintiff in the amount of $7,002.62 previously paid by the government under the
18
EAJA.
19
Dated: May 31, 2018
20
21
22
23
24
DLB:6
DB\orders\orders.soc sec\lor1478.406(b).ord
25
26
27
28
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?