Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 41

ORDER granting 36 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees. See attached ruling. Signed by Judge Robert A. Richardson on 3/5/2025. (Fries, J.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MIGDALIA CRUZ,
plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:21-cv-592(RAR)

RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)
Migdalia C. (“plaintiff”) has moved for an award of
attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Plaintiff’s
counsel is seeking $13,284.00, which is twenty-five percent of
the past due Social Security benefits paid to plaintiff. (Dkt.
#36-1 at 2.) The Commissioner, in his limited role in this type
of proceeding, does not support or object to the motion. (Dkt.
#38 at 1.)
As background, plaintiff’s counsel filed the instant
action seeking judicial review of an adverse decision by an
Administrative Law Judge(“ALJ”) after a denial of benefits.
(Dkt. #1.)

The Court granted plaintiff’s motion to reverse and

remand the decision to the Social Security Administration
(“SSA”) for further proceedings. (Dkt. #29.)

Following remand

and an additional hearing before an ALJ, plaintiff apparently

received benefits but not a Notice of Award from the Social
Security Administration.

(Dkt. #40 at 1.)

Rather, plaintiff’s

counsel was provided an “Important Information Letter.” (Dkt.
#36-3.)

The important information letter indicated that

$13,284.00, which represented 25% of the past due benefit
awarded to plaintiff, was mistakenly released to plaintiff and
not withheld for the payment of any fees under 406(b).

(Dkt.

#36-3 and #40 at 1.)
Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion for attorney
fees, indicating the SSA’s error and outlining the amount of
work performed on the file and the prior award of EAJA fees.
(Dkt. #36-1 at 1-3 and attached exhibits.)
In evaluating a motion for attorney fees in the Social
Security context, “Congress capped contingency fees at twentyfive percent of the claimant's past-due benefits and charged
courts with ensuring that resulting fees are ‘reasonable.’”
Fields v. Kijakazi, 24 F.4th 845, 849 (2d Cir. 2022) (citing 42
U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A)).

In Fields, the Second Circuit

articulated the now well-established “guidelines for courts
conducting this reasonableness analysis, instructing [courts] to
consider: a) the character of the representation and the result
the representative achieved, b) whether a claimant's counsel is
responsible for undue delay, and c) whether there was fraud or

2

overreaching in the making of the contingency agreement.”
Fields, 24 F.4th at 849 (footnote omitted).
Additionally, “as a part of the reasonableness
determination, a district court must also consider whether a
requested fee would result in a ‘windfall’ to counsel.” Id.
“In determining whether there is a windfall that renders a §
406(b) fee in a particular case unreasonable, courts must
consider more than the de facto hourly rate.” Id. at 854.
Rather, the court should consider the “ability and expertise of
the lawyer” involved, the “nature and length of the professional
relationship with claimant,” the satisfaction of the client, and
how uncertain it was that the case would result in an award of
benefits.

Id. at 854-55.

As the Second Circuit noted, “even a

high hourly rate may be perfectly reasonable, and not a
windfall, in the context of any given case” Id. at 854.
In the instant case, the motion for attorney fees was filed
after more than a year of pursuing the Notice of Award and
timely following the receipt of the Important Information
Letter.

Plaintiff’s counsel clearly achieved a positive result

for the claimant and there is no evidence of any undue delay or
fraud on the part of plaintiff’s counsel.

Additionally, the

requested amount is, as indicated in the letter, 25% of the
award of benefits.

In evaluating the relevant factors regarding

the reasonableness of the award, the Court finds that the

3

requested fee would not constitute a windfall.

Plaintiff’s

counsel is experienced and skilled in the area of Social
Security disability appeals, having regularly represented
claimants before this Court.

Plaintiff’s counsel has expended

22.7 hours of attorney time and 5.9 hours of paralegal time in
representing the plaintiff in federal court in this matter.
(Dkt. #36-1 at 2.)

Presumably, the plaintiff, who has now been

awarded benefits, was satisfied with counsel’s performance in
this case.

Finally, plaintiff’s counsel was required to seek

remand through the federal court in order to achieve this
result, which demonstrates that it was uncertain that the case
could result in an award of benefits.

For these reasons the

Court finds that the requested award of $13,284.00, which
amounts to an hourly rate of $559.21 after deducting paralegal
time at $100.00 per hour, is reasonable.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for an award of
attorney’s fees in the amount of $13,284.00 is GRANTED and to be
paid out of the plaintiff’s past-due benefit in accordance with
agency policy.1

Upon receipt of the fees awarded herein,

While the Court has not had the chance to address this issue in the past,
the SSA has a policy in place for situations wherein the fee to be withheld
for counsel has been mistakenly provided to the claimant.
Where the SSA has released to a claimant all or part of the 25%
that should have been withheld for payment of legal fees, upon
approval of the fees pursuant to § 406(b), counsel for plaintiff
will attempt to obtain these fees from the claimant. If the claimant
fails to remit payment to counsel, the SSA will then pay counsel
1

4

plaintiff’s counsel has indicated that he will refund to
plaintiff the smaller of that fee, or the previously awarded
fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
This is not a recommended ruling.

The consent of the

parties allows this magistrate judge to direct the entry of a
judgment of the district court in accordance with the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Appeals can be made directly to the

appropriate United States Court of Appeals from this judgment.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(3).
SO ORDERED this 5th day of March, 2025, at Hartford,
Connecticut.
__
/s/
__ ___ ____
Robert A. Richardson
United States Magistrate Judge

the amount it failed to withhold by creating an overpayment to the
claimant's disability account. Thereafter, the SSA will recoup the
amount of money it failed to withhold from the claimant's monthly
disability benefits in small increments subject to the claimant's
financial ability to repay the overpaid amount. The claimant is
permitted to file a waiver of the overpayment if he or she is unable
to afford even the small reduction in his or her monthly disability
benefits. As a result, the claimant is not harmed by the SSA's
mistake.
Henderson v. Saul, No. 16-CV-6744 (NG), 2019 WL 3428506, at *2 n.2. (E.D.N.Y.
July 30, 2019)(citing SSA Program Operations Manual System GN 03920.055).

5