Redic v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

DECISION AND ORDER granting 18 Motion for § 406(b) Attorney Fees. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 5/29/2020. (GMS)

Case 6:18-cv-06225-FPG Document 23 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CELESTE M. REDIC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case # 18-CV-6225-FPG
DECISION AND ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Celeste M. Redic brought this appeal of the Social Security Administration’s
(“SSA”) decision to deny her disability benefits. ECF No. 1. On April 8, 2019, the Court granted
Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and remanded this case for further administrative
proceedings. ECF No. 13. Thereafter, the Court entered a stipulation awarding Plaintiff’s
attorney, Timothy Hiller, $6,100.48 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28
U.S.C. § 2412. ECF No. 17.
On April 5, 2020, the SSA issued a Notice of Award granting Plaintiff disability benefits
and withholding $19,195.25—25% of the $76,781.00 awarded for past due benefits—to pay her
attorney. ECF No. 18-4 at 3. On April 20, 2020, Hiller moved for $19,195.25 in attorney’s fees
under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). ECF No. 18.
For the reasons that follow, Hiller’s motion is GRANTED, Hiller is awarded $19,195.25
in fees, and Hiller shall remit the $6,100.48 in EAJA fees to Plaintiff.
DISCUSSION
I.

§ 406(b) and Reasonableness of the Requested Fee
The Social Security Act provides that
[w]henever 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
1

Case 6:18-cv-06225-FPG Document 23 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 3

of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled
by reason of such judgment.
42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A).
Within the 25% boundary, “the attorney for the successful claimant must show that the fee
sought is reasonable for the services rendered.” Abbey v. Berryhill, No. 6:17-CV-06430-MAT,
2019 WL 336572, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2019) (quoting Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789,
807 (2002)). The statute also requires “court review of [contingent fee] arrangements as an
independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results in particular cases.” Id.
After a court confirms that the fee is within the 25% statutory boundary, it analyzes three
factors to determine if the resulting fee is reasonable. Those factors are: (1) whether the requested
fee is out of line with the “character of the representation and the results the representation
achieved”; (2) whether the attorney unreasonably delayed the proceedings in an attempt to increase
the accumulation of benefits and thereby increase his fee; and (3) whether “the benefits awarded
are large in comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case,” the so-called “windfall”
factor. Id. (citation omitted).
The Court has reviewed each factor to assure that the requested fee is reasonable. As an
initial matter, the SSA awarded Plaintiff $76,781.00 in past due benefits and therefore counsel’s
request for $ 19,195.25 in fees—25% of the award—does not exceed the statutory cap.
As to the first factor, the Court finds that the requested fee is in line with the character of
the representation and the results it achieved, because Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings with non-boilerplate arguments, ECF No. 9, and obtained remand, which ultimately led
to a favorable decision awarding her benefits. As to the second factor, there is no evidence that
counsel unreasonably delayed the proceedings in an attempt to inflate past due benefits and the
potential fee award.
2

Case 6:18-cv-06225-FPG Document 23 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 3

As to the third factor, i.e., whether the fee award constitutes a windfall to the attorney,
courts often examine the lodestar figure to help them make this determination. See Abbey, 2019
WL 336572, at *2; see also Wells v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 367, 371 (2d Cir. 1990). Here, Hiller spent
30.8 hours in connection with the appeal to this Court. ECF No. 18-2 at 2-3. Dividing the
$19,195.25 fee requested by 30.8 hours yields an hourly rate of $623.22. This Court has found
even higher rates reasonable where, as here, counsel developed meritorious, non-boilerplate
arguments on the claimant’s behalf. See Van Ostberg v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 16-CV-284FPG, 2020 WL 1445879, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2020) (awarding fees with effective hourly
rate of $821.25); McDonald v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 16-CV-926, 2019 WL 1375084, at *2
(W.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2019) (awarding fees with effective hourly rate of $1.051.64); see also Torres
v. Colvin, No. 11-CV-5309, 2014 WL 909765, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2014) (“[A] substantial
body of caselaw has awarded rates that approach, if they do not exceed, $1,000.00.”).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the requested fee award is reasonable.
CONCLUSION
Hiller’s motion for attorney’s fees under § 406(b) (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED and Hiller
is awarded $19,195.25 in fees. The Court directs the Commissioner to release those funds withheld
from Plaintiff’s benefits award. After counsel receives the § 406(b) fee, he must remit the
$6,100.48 in EAJA fees to Plaintiff, which he has indicated he intends to do. ECF No. 18-1 at 6.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 29, 2020
Rochester, New York
______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court

3