FINNIESSEE v. COLVIN

Filing 20

ORDER granting 17 Motion for Attorney's Fees. Plaintiff's counsel is awarded $13,564.00 in attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 406(b). Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 7/3/2018. (aks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION

THERESA FINNIESSEE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 7:14-CV-114 (HL)

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner, Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees
Under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (Doc. 17). On February 2,
2015, the Commissioner filed an unopposed motion requesting that the Court
reverse the Commissioner’s decision and remand this matter to the
Commissioner for further proceedings. (Doc. 10). The Court granted the motion
and remanded the case. (Doc. 11). Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff’s counsel, Charles
L. Martin, filed a motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act
(“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Doc. 13). Based on a total of 37.85 attorney work
hours, Mr. Martin requested attorney’s fee in the amount of $7,141.27. (Id.).
Pursuant to a joint stipulation (Doc. 14), the Court awarded Mr. Martin $6,800.00
in attorney’s fees. (Doc. 15). However, because Plaintiff owed a qualifying debt to
the government, her EAJA fee award was applied to that debt under the Treasury

Offset Program. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3711 and 3716; see also Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S.
586, 589-93 (2010). Mr. Martin now seeks an award of attorney’s fees under 42
U.S.C. § 406(b) in the amount of $13,564.00, representing 25% of Plaintiff’s pastdue benefits less the $6,000.00 in administrative fees he has already received
from the Social Security Administration (“SSA”). (Docs. 17-1, 17-3). The
Commissioner does not oppose the fee award sought by Mr. Martin. (Doc. 19).
The Court may award a reasonable contingency fee for successful
representation of a claimant in a Social Security appeal, provided that the
amount does not exceed 25% of the total past due benefits awarded to the
claimant. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1); Jackson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 601 F.3d 1268,
1271 (11th Cir. 2010). If the requested fee falls within the 25% limit, “the court
must then determine ‘whether the fee sought is reasonable for the services
rendered.’” Id. (quoting Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002)).
“[C]ourts may reduce the requested fee if the representation has been
substandard, if the attorney has been responsible for delay, or if the benefits are
large in comparison to the amount of time the attorney spent on the case.” Id.
The fee award requested by Mr. Martin falls within the 25% limit under
§ 406(b) and otherwise comports with the fee agreement with Plaintiff. (Doc. 174). According to the Notice of Award issued to Plaintiff on February 28, 2018,
SSA awarded Plaintiff past-due benefits of $78,256.00. (Doc. 17-3). SSA

2

withheld $6,000.00 from the award to pay Mr. Martin. (Id.). Twenty-five percent
of $78,256.00 less the $6,000.00 administrative fee equals $13,564.00.
Next, the Court must examine the reasonableness of the fee. Plaintiff’s
counsel bears the burden of persuasion to “show that the fee sought is
reasonable for the services rendered.” Gisbrechet, 535 U.S. at 807, n. 17. To
assist the Court in assessing the reasonableness of the fee requested, the
attorney may submit the fee agreement, the record of the hours spent
representing the claimant, and a statement of the attorney’s normal hourly billing
charge for a non-contingency fee case. Id. at 808.
Plaintiff’s counsel is an experienced Social Security claimant’s attorney
whose legal practice is comprised of 90% Social Security work. (Doc. 17-7, ¶¶ 34). While the vast majority of Mr. Martin’s legal representation is conducted on a
contingency fee basis, he does on occasion bill his services at a non-contingent
hourly rate of $425.00 per hour. (Id. at ¶ 5). For this particular case, Mr. Martin
entered into a contingency fee contract with Plaintiff, whereby Plaintiff agreed to
pay Mr. Martin 25% of any back benefits she received. (Doc. 17-4, p. 3).
Mr. Martin attests that over the course of his representation of Plaintiff, he
recorded a total of 37.85 hours of legal work. (Doc. 17-7). The services he
provided Plaintiff included “evaluating the case for appeal to the District Court;
advising the claimant regarding appeal to District Court[;] filing the complaint;
carefully studying and summarizing the administrative record and decisions;
3

researching, preparing and filing a brief in District Court; review[ing] [the
Commissioner‘s] motion to remand and evaluat[ing] . . appeal merit review; and
preparing an application for EAJA attorney’s fees.” (Doc. 17-1, p. 2). Based on
the amount of time expended by Mr. Martin in preparing this case and pursuing
benefits on behalf of Plaintiff, as well as the requisite skill and expertise required
to obtain the benefits received by Plaintiff, the Court concludes that the 25%
contingency fee is reasonable in this case.
The Court accordingly GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc.
17) and awards Plaintiff’s attorney $13,564.00 in attorney’s fee pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 406(b).
SO ORDERED this 3rd day of July, 2018.

s/ Hugh Lawson_______________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE
aks

4