Blankenship v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 3/13/2020 GRANTING 20 Motion for Attorney Fees. Counsel for plaintiff is awarded $9,000.00 in attorney's fees under § 406(b), the Commissioner shall certify that amount to be paid to counsel from the funds previously withheld for the payment of such fees, and Counsel for plaintiff is directed to remit to plaintiff the amount of $1,750.00 for EAJA fees previously paid to counsel by the Commissioner. (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KEVIN BLANKENSHIP,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:16-cv-01024 AC
v.
ORDER
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social
Security,
16
Defendant.
17
Plaintiff sought judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security
18
19
(“Commissioner”), denying his application for a period of disability and disability insurance
20
benefits under Title II AND Title XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”). On October 25,
21
2016 the signed the parties’ stipulation to remand the matter for further proceedings, entering
22
judgment in favor of plaintiff. ECF Nos. 15, 16.
Now pending before the court is plaintiff’s January 31, 2020 motion for an award of
23
24
attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). ECF No. 20. On February 6, 2020, defendant
25
filed a response asserting that defendant “is not in a position to either assent or
26
object” to the fee request. ECF No. 22 at 2. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be
27
granted.
28
////
1
1
I. REASONABLENESS OF FEE REQUEST
2
At the outset of the representation, plaintiff and his counsel entered into a contingent-fee
3
agreement. ECF No. 20-1. Pursuant to that agreement plaintiff’s counsel now seeks attorney’s
4
fees in the amount of $7,250.00, to accompany the $1,750.00 in previously awarded Equal Access
5
to Justice Act fees,1 which represents less than 25% of the $106,990.00 in retroactive disability
6
benefits received by plaintiff on remand, for 11.05 hours of attorney time expended on this
7
matter. ECF Nos. 20 at 3, 20-2.
8
9
Attorneys are entitled to fees for cases in which they have successfully represented social
security claimants:
10
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.
11
12
13
14
15
42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). “In contrast to fees awarded under fee-shifting provisions such as 42
16
U.S.C. § 1988, the fee is paid by the claimant out of the past-due benefits awarded; the losing
17
party is not responsible for payment.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir. 2009)
18
(en banc) (citing Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 802 (2002)). The goal of fee awards under
19
§ 406(b) is “‘to protect claimants against “inordinately large fees” and also to ensure that
20
attorneys representing successful claimants would not risk “nonpayment of [appropriate] fees.”’”
21
Parrish v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 698 F.3d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Gisbrecht,
22
535 U.S. at 805).
23
The 25% statutory maximum fee is not an automatic entitlement, and the court must
24
ensure that the fee requested is reasonable. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808-09 (“406(b) does not
25
displace contingent-fee agreements within the statutory ceiling; instead, § 406(b) instructs courts
26
to review for reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements”). “Within the 25 percent
27
28
1
The parties previously stipulated to an award of $1,750 in EAJA fees. ECF Nos. 18, 19.
Plaintiff’s total award request amounts to $9,000.
2
1
boundary . . . the attorney for the successful claimant must show that the fee sought is reasonable
2
for the services rendered.” Id. at 807. “[A] district court charged with determining a reasonable
3
fee award under § 406(b)(1)(A) must respect ‘the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee
4
arrangements,’ ‘looking first to the contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for reasonableness.’”
5
Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1149 (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 793, 808).
6
In determining whether the requested fee is reasonable, the court considers “‘the character
7
of the representation and the results achieved by the representative.’” Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151
8
(quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808). In determining whether a reduction in the fee is warranted,
9
the court considers whether the attorney provided “substandard representation or delayed the
10
case,” or obtained “benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent on the case.” Id. Finally,
11
the court considers the attorney’s record of hours worked and counsel’s regular hourly billing
12
charge for non-contingent cases. Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151-52 (citing Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at
13
808); see also, E.D. Cal. R. 293(c)(1) (in fixing attorney’s fees the court considers “the time and
14
labor required”). Below, the court will consider these factors in assessing whether the fee
15
requested by counsel in this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) is reasonable.
16
Here, plaintiff’s counsel is an experienced attorney who secured a successful result for
17
plaintiff. There is no indication that a reduction of fees is warranted due to any substandard
18
performance by counsel. There is also no evidence that plaintiff’s counsel engaged in any
19
dilatory conduct resulting in excessive delay. The court finds that the $7,250.00 fee (or $9,000
20
inclusive of awarded EAJA fees), which represents less than 25% of the $106,990.00 in past-due
21
benefits paid to plaintiff, is not excessive in relation to the benefits awarded. In making this
22
determination, the court recognizes the contingent fee nature of this case and counsel’s
23
assumption of the risk of going uncompensated in agreeing to represent plaintiff on such terms.
24
See Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1152 (“[t]he attorneys assumed significant risk in accepting these
25
cases, including the risk that no benefits would be awarded or that there would be a long court or
26
administrative delay in resolving the cases”). Finally, counsel has submitted a detailed billing
27
statement in support of the requested fee. ECF No. 39 at 1-3.
28
////
3
1
2
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the court concludes that the fees sought by
counsel pursuant to § 406(b) are reasonable.
3
II. OFFSET FOR EAJA FEES
4
An award of § 406(b) fees must be offset by any prior award of attorney’s fees granted
5
under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). 28 U.S.C. § 2412; Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796.
6
Here, plaintiff’s attorney was previously awarded EAJA fees. Counsel attempts to subvert the
7
usual process in which §406(b) fees are awarded and EAJA fees are refunded to the plaintiff by
8
reducing her pending fee request to a net award of $7,250.00, so there is no excess fee recovery.
9
See ECF No. 20 at 5. The Commissioner opposes this route, and asks the court to award total §
10
406(b) fees and require plaintiff’s counsel to remit to plaintiff the previously awarded EAJA fees.
11
ECF No. 22 at 4-5. The court agrees with the Commissioner that these fees must be addressed
12
separately. “The EAJA ‘savings provision’ provides that counsel must refund to the claimant the
13
amount of the smaller fee when a court approves both an EAJA fee and a § 406(b) fee for the
14
‘same work,’ . . .” Pub. L. No. 99–80, § 3, 99 Stat. 183 (1985).” Franz v. Colvin, 672 F. App’x
15
765, 766 (9th Cir. 2017)(unpublished). Plaintiff’s counsel cites the desire for her client to receive
16
the EAJA fees more efficiently, and while the court sees the appeal of this, she cites no case law
17
indicating that this court can consider §406(b) fees and EAJA fees together without resorting to
18
the savings provision. Plaintiff did not reply to plaintiff’s response. Thus, the court agrees with
19
the Commissioner that the total requested fees should be awarded, and the EAJA fees should be
20
remitted to plaintiff.
21
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
22
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for attorney Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (ECF No. 20), is
23
GRANTED;
24
2. Counsel for plaintiff is awarded $9,000.00 in attorney’s fees under § 406(b); the
25
Commissioner shall certify that amount to be paid to counsel from the funds previously withheld
26
for the payment of such fees; and
27
////
28
////
4
1
3. Counsel for plaintiff is directed to remit to plaintiff the amount of $1,750.00 for EAJA
2
fees previously paid to counsel by the Commissioner.
3
DATED: March 13, 2020
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?