Hall v. Colvin

Filing 28

ORDER granting 24 Motion for Attorney Fees - Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 3/19/2020. (Tripp, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NO. 7:16-CV-347-FL
GEORGE D. HALL,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social )
)
Security,
)
Defendant.
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion (DE 24) for attorneys’ fees pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Defendant filed a response neither supporting nor opposing the motion, but
noting that the court must independently determine the reasonableness of fees requested. In this
posture, the matter is ripe for ruling. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s motion is allowed.
BACKGROUND
On February 12, 2020, defendant issued a notice of award of benefits, calculating past due
disability benefits for the period of April 2010 through August 2019, in the amount of $158,214.60.
Such past due benefits culminated almost eight years of administrative and court proceedings
during which plaintiff was represented by multiple attorneys at the law firm Kathleen, Shannon,
Glancy, P.A. (collectively, herein, “counsel”). At the administrative level, plaintiff received two
unfavorable decisions, in 2013 and 2016, before receiving final favorable decision after third
hearing held August 9, 2019. In federal court, upon briefing by counsel, this court remanded twice
for further administrative proceedings, first on June 9, 2015 (in case number 7:14-CV-153-BO),
and second on February 12, 2018, (in the instant case). In both instances, the court awarded

attorneys’ fees in the combined amount of $7,665.52, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act
(EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), upon determination that the position of the United States in litigation
was not substantially justified.
Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees February 19, 2020, seeking to recover
$39,553.65 representing 25% of the past due disability benefits awarded, with provision to refund
to plaintiff the $7,665.52 in EAJA fees previously awarded. In support, plaintiff has filed a detailed
memorandum of law; notice of award of benefits; contingency-fee agreements between counsel
and plaintiff, executed in 2011 and 2014; statement by plaintiff in support of fees; and attorney
time records.
In response, defendant neither supports nor opposes the instant motion, but notes that the
court must independently determine the reasonableness of fees requested.
DISCUSSION
Section 406(b) provides that “[w]henever a court renders a judgment favorable to a
claimant . . . 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 % of the
total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment.” 42
U.S.C.A. § 406(b)(1)(A). The Supreme Court has held that “§ 406(b) does not displace contingentfee 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 a particular case.” Gisbrecht
v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002).
“[A] reduction in the contingent fee may be appropriate when (1) the fee is out of line with
‘the character of the representation and the results . . . achieved,’ (2) counsel’s delay caused past-

2

due benefits to accumulate ‘during the pendency of the case in court,’ or (3) past-due benefits ‘are
large in comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case.’” Mudd v. Barnhart, 418
F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808). In reviewing the request for
fees, a “reviewing court should disallow ‘windfalls for lawyers.’” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808
(quoting Rodriguez v. Bowen, 865 F.2d 739, 747 (6th Cir. 1989)).
Although there is no bright-line test for determining whether a fee will result in a
“windfall,” this court has considered several factors, including “(1) whether the attorney’s efforts
were particularly successful for the plaintiff, (2) whether there is evidence of the effort expended
by the attorney demonstrated through pleadings which were not boilerplate and through arguments
which involved both real issues of material fact and required legal research, and finally, (3)
whether the case was handled efficiently due to the attorney’s experience in handling social
security cases.” Perrigo v. Astrue, 5:08-CV-626-FL, 2012 WL 3903896 *4 (E.D.N.C. May 22,
2012) (quotations omitted); Abernathy v. Astrue, No. 4:08–CV–99–FL, 2011 WL 488657, at *2
(E.D.N.C. Feb. 7, 2011); see Mudd, 418 F.3d at 428 (identifying factors relevant to reasonableness
as “the overall complexity of the case, the lawyering skill necessary to handle it effectively, the
risks involved, and the significance of the result achieved in the district court.”).
Applying the above factors, the court finds the fee in the instant matter reasonable. The
fee is in line with the contingency-fee character of the representation and the results achieved,
where counsel achieved a successful remand resulting in an award of benefits for plaintiff. Counsel
did not unreasonably delay during the pendency of the case in court. Moreover, the record
evidences significant effort by counsel through pleadings which were not boilerplate, and through
arguments which involved both careful assessment of the record and the legal issues bearing upon
the remand determination. Finally, counsel evidences efficient handling of this case through

3

extensive past experience representing clients in other social security cases. In sum, the court finds
reasonable the $35,553.65, requested in this case, with refund to plaintiff of $7,665.52 already
received under EAJA.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees is ALLOWED in the full
amount requested. Defendant shall release to plaintiff’s counsel fees under section 206(b) of the
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), in the amount of $39,553.65 with refund to plaintiff of $7,665.52,
representing the prior EAJA awards.
SO ORDERED, this the 19th day of March, 2020.

_____________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

4