Howard v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 35

ORDER granting 32 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 7/15/2020. (jmt)

Case 3:17-cv-00203-JPG-RJD Document 35 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #729
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WILLIAM A. HOWARD,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
COMMISSIONER of SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

Civil No. 17-cv-203-JPG-RJD

ORDER for ATTORNEY’S FEES
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Petition for Attorney Fees Pursuant to §
206(b)(1) (Doc. 32).
After this Court reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),
the Commissioner granted Plaintiff’s application for benefits.

The fee agreement between

Plaintiff and his attorney (Doc. 36, Ex. 2) provided for a fee of 25% of Plaintiff’s past-due
benefits. Plaintiff was found to be disabled as of June 15, 2013, and the amount of past-due
benefits is $85,098.00.

The Commissioner withheld 25% of that amount ($21,274.50) for

attorney’s fees, subject to court approval. (Doc. 32, Ex. 1).
42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A) provides that the Court may allow a “reasonable fee,” not in
excess of 25% of the total of the past-due benefits. However, if the Court approves such a fee,
“no other fee may be payable or certified for payment for such representation except as provided
in this paragraph.” Ibid. In practical terms, this means that, when a fee is awarded under §
406(b)(1), counsel must refund any amount previously awarded under the Equal Access to
Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). Here, the Court awarded an EAJA fee in the amount of
$4,757.29. (Doc. 31).
The Supreme Court has held that § 406(b)(1) controls, but does not displace, contingent
fee agreement in social security cases:
1

Case 3:17-cv-00203-JPG-RJD Document 35 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #730
Most plausibly read, we conclude, § 406(b) does not displace contingent-fee agreements
as the primary means by which fees are set for successfully representing Social Security
benefits claimants in court. Rather, § 406(b) calls for court review of such arrangements
as an independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results in particular cases.
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002).
Having reviewed the circumstances presented here, including the time and effort
expended by counsel, the excellent result received by Plaintiff, the amount of the past-due
benefits and the value of the projected benefits, the Court concludes that $21,274.50 is a
reasonable fee. The Court notes that counsel agrees to waive any claim for fees for representing
Plaintiff at the administrative level. (Doc. 32, ¶ 14).
While the Commissioner has no direct stake in the § 406(b)(1) fee request, he “plays a
part in the fee determination resembling that of a trustee for the claimants.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S.
at 798, n. 6. The Commissioner has filed a response indicating he does not oppose the fee
request.

(Doc. 34).

Wherefore, Plaintiff’s Petition for Attorney Fees (Doc. 32) is GRANTED. The Court
awards Plaintiff’s counsel Frederick J. Daley, Jr. a fee of $21,274.50 (twenty-one thousand, two
hundred seventy-four dollars and fifty cents), to be paid by the agency from the past-due
benefits. Upon receipt, counsel shall refund to Plaintiff the amount of the EAJA fee.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 15, 2020.

s/ Reona J. Daly
REONA J. DALY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2