Rosser v. Colvin

Filing 29

JUDGMENT on Attorney Fees granting in part and denying in part Mr. Murahari's 26 and 27 Motions for attorney's fees; Fees awarded to Plaintiff against Defendant in the amount set forth; directing Mr. Murahari to reimburse to Ms. Rosser fees in the amount set forth that he received pursuant to the EAJA. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie A Gallagher on 6/27/2018. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF
STEPHANIE A. GALLAGHER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
[phone]
Fax [phone]

June 27, 2018
LETTER TO COUNSEL

RE:

Constance Sims Rosser v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;1
Civil No. SAG-16-935

Dear Counsel:
Arjun K. Murahari, Esq. has filed a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Social
Security Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), in conjunction with his representation of Constance
Sims Rosser before this Court. [ECF Nos. 26, 27]. In response, the Social Security
Administration (“SSA”) asked this Court to consider whether Mr. Murahari’s requested amount
constitutes a reasonable fee and to order Mr. Murahari to refund in full to Ms. Rosser the amount
in attorney’s fees previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). [ECF
No. 28]. I have considered those filings. No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md.
2016). For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Murahari’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
On February 24, 2017, this Court awarded Mr. Murahari $4,510.89 for 23.50 hours
worked on Ms. Rosser’s case in federal court. [ECF No. 25]; see also [ECF No. 23 at 1]. Ms.
Rosser subsequently received a Notice of Change in Benefits, in which she was awarded
$138,439.00 in past due benefits for herself and her child auxiliary. [ECF Nos. 26-3, 27-3]; see
also [ECF No. 28-1 at 2]. The SSA withheld twenty-five percent of Ms. Rosser’s total past-due
benefits, amounting to $34,609.75. See [ECF No. 26-3]; . On April 12, 2018, Mr. Murahari
filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees, seeking $34,609.75 in attorney’s fees. [ECF No. 26].
Subsequently, on April 16, 2018, Mr. Murahari filed a Second Motion for Attorney’s Fees,
seeking $11,533.75 in additional attorney’s fees that “a telephone call from [Mr. Murahari’s]
office to the Payment Center did reveal . . . was withheld” for child auxiliary benefits. [ECF No.
27]. Thus, Mr. Murahari seeks a total amount of $46,143.50 in attorney’s fees.
The Act authorizes a reasonable fee for successful representation before this Court, not to
exceed twenty-five percent of a claimant’s total past-due benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Although
contingent fee agreements are the “primary means by which fees are set” in Social Security
cases, a court must nevertheless perform an “independent check, to assure that they yield
reasonable results in particular cases.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). In
1

Currently, the position of Commissioner of the Social Security Administration is vacant, and most duties are
fulfilled by Nancy A. Berryhill, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, performing the duties and functions not
reserved to the Commissioner of Social Security.

Constance Sims Rosser v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-16-935
June 27, 2018
Page 2
determining whether a request for attorney’s fees under section 406(b) is reasonable, the
Supreme Court has explained that a reviewing court may properly consider the “character of the
representation and the results the representative received.” Id. Importantly, the Supreme Court
acknowledged that a contingent fee agreement would not result in a reasonable fee if the fee
constituted a “windfall” to the attorney. Id. at 808.
Here, Mr. Murahari and Ms. Rosser entered into a contingent fee agreement, by which
Ms. Rosser agreed to pay Mr. Murahari twenty-five percent of all retroactive benefits to which
she might become entitled. [ECF No. 23-5]. As an initial matter, this Court is persuaded by the
SSA’s contention that the amount of $34,609.75 withheld as stated in the Notice of Change of
Benefits, (ECF No. 26-3), represents twenty-five percent of all past-due benefits for Ms. Rosser
and her child auxiliary. The Declaration of Paraskevi Maddox, Social Insurance Specialist for
Program Integrity Branch in the SSA’s Office of Disability Policy, asserted that the Master
Beneficiary Record “shows that 25 percent of [Ms. Rosser’s total past-due benefits for herself
and her child auxiliary] has been withheld totaling $34,609.75, with $23,076.00 withheld from
Ms. Rosser’s past due benefits and $11,533.75 withheld from Ms. Rosser’s child auxiliary’s past
due benefits.” [ECF No. 28-1 ¶ 3]. Accordingly, this Court will reduce Mr. Murahari’s
requested amount of attorney’s fees from $46,143.50 to $34,609.75.
In his previous motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act
(“EAJA”), Mr. Murahari submitted an itemized report documenting the 23.50 hours he expended
before this Court in Ms. Rosser’s case. [ECF No. 23-7]. If Mr. Murahari receives the full
amount of fees he requests, his fee for representation before this Court will effectively total
$1,472.76 per hour. Mr. Murahari must therefore show that an effective rate of $1,472.76 per
hour is reasonable for the services he rendered. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807.
Notably, Mr. Murahari’s requested fee is nearly five times the top hourly rate that is
presumptively reasonable for attorneys of his experience level, pursuant to the fee guidelines
appended to the Local Rules of this Court.2 Although it is customary in Social Security cases for
courts to approve significantly higher rates, Mr. Murahari’s requested rate far exceeds the typical
rate awarded by courts in the Fourth Circuit for attorney’s fees in successful Social Security
appeals. See, e.g., Melvin v. Colvin, No. 5:10-CV-160-FL, 2013 WL 3340490 (E.D.N.C. July 2,
2013) (approving contingency fee agreement with hourly rate of $1,043.70); Claypool v.
Barnhart, 294 F. Supp. 2d 829, 833 (S.D.W. Va. 2003) (approving contingency fee agreement
with hourly rate of $1,433.12); Lehman v. Colvin, Civil No. SAG-12-2160 (D. Md. July 7, 2016)
(unpublished) (approving contingency fee agreement with hourly rate of $1,028.14). While this
Court notes Mr. Murahari’s effective performance and the substantial past-due benefit award to
his client, Mr. Murahari’s request for $34,609.75 for 23.50 hours in this case would result in a
windfall. Instead, this Court finds that an award of $23,500.00, amounting to an hourly rate of
$1,000.00, or a little over triple the hourly rate under the fee guidelines for an attorney of like
2

Although they do not govern Social Security cases, the Local Rules prescribe guidelines for determining attorney’s
fees in certain cases, which are instructive in evaluating the reasonableness of the effective hourly rate in this case.
See Loc. R. App’x B (D. Md. 2016). For attorneys admitted to the bar for a period of five (5) to eight (8) years, like
Mr. Murahari, the presumptively reasonable hourly rate is between $165.00 and $300.00 per hour. Id.

Constance Sims Rosser v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration;
Civil No. SAG-16-935
June 27, 2018
Page 3
experience, would adequately compensate Mr. Murahari for the time that he spent on this case in
this Court.
For the reasons set forth herein, this Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Mr.
Murahari’s motion for attorney’s fees, [ECF Nos. 26, 27]. This Court will award Mr. Murahari
attorney’s fees totaling $23,500.00. Mr. Murahari is further directed to reimburse to Ms. Rosser
the $4,510.89 in fees he received pursuant to the EAJA.
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion and docketed
as an order.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Stephanie A. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge