Schneider v. Colvin
Filing
19
DECISION & ORDER granting Schneider's motion for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A) in the amount of $14,487, Docket Item 16 ; and ordering that Schneider's counsel shall refund the $4,275 in EAJA fees to Schneider within 14 days of the entry date of this decision and order. Signed by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 7/13/2020. (RFI)
Case 1:16-cv-00929-LJV-JJM Document 19 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________
MICHAEL SCHNEIDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
16-CV-929
DECISION AND ORDER
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
___________________________________
The plaintiff, Michael Schneider, is a prevailing party in this social security
benefits action. His counsel has moved for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C.
§ 406(b)(1)(A). Docket Item 16. The defendant does not oppose the motion. Docket
Item 18.
Section 406(b)(1)(A) provides:
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, notwithstanding the provisions of
section 405(i) of this title, but subject to subsection (d) of this section, 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. In case of any such
judgment, no other fee may be payable or certified for payment for such
representation except as provided in this paragraph.
Schneider’s counsel seeks $14,487 in fees, which is 25% of the past-due
benefits Schneider was awarded and is consistent with the contingent-fee agreement
that provides for attorney’s fees in the amount of 25% of any recovery. Docket Item 161 at 8.
Case 1:16-cv-00929-LJV-JJM Document 19 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 3
Having reviewed counsel’s fee request and supporting documentation, this Court
finds that the requested fee is reasonable based on counsel’s experience in social
security law, the character of the representation provided, and the favorable results
achieved. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 808 (2002). Moreover, there is no
indication that this fee is a windfall. 1 Id. The $14,487 fee request is therefore granted
under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A).
By stipulation approved and ordered on September 13, 2017, this Court
previously awarded Schneider’s counsel $4,275 in fees under the Equal Access to
Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Docket Items 14 and 15. Because the fees
granted above exceed the EAJA fees, Schneider’s counsel must refund the EAJA fees
to him. See Wells v. Bowen, 855 F.2d 37, 42 (2d Cir. 1988).
1
While the fee here constitutes an hourly rate of $637, Docket Item 16-1 at 7—
high by Western New York standards—the precedent cited in counsel’s fee application
and the incentive necessary for counsel to take contingency-fee cases weigh in favor of
approving the fee here. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808 (noting that “a record of the
hours spent representing the claimant” can be used by the court “as an aid to [its]
assessment of the reasonableness of the fee yielded by the fee agreement”).
2
Case 1:16-cv-00929-LJV-JJM Document 19 Filed 07/13/20 Page 3 of 3
ORDER
In light of the above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under
42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A) in the amount of $14,487, Docket Item 16, is GRANTED; and it
is further
ORDERED that Schneider’s counsel shall refund the $4,275 in EAJA fees to
Schneider within 14 days of the entry date of this decision and order.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 13, 2020
Buffalo, New York
/s/ Lawrence J. Vilardo
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?