Newman v. Astrue
Filing
23
ORDER granting 21 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 7/28/2014. (khm)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00167-MR-DLH
STEVEN NEWMAN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
)
Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Attorney Fees under § 406(b) of the Social Security Act [Doc. 21].
I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 13, 2012, the Plaintiff initiated this action seeking judicial
review of the Commissioner's decision to deny his application for benefits
under the Social Security Act. [Doc. 1]. On April 10, 2013, this Court
reversed the Commissioner's decision denying the Plaintiff's application for
benefits and remanded the case to the Appeals Council for further
administrative action. [Doc. 16]. On August 12, 2013, the Court awarded
the Plaintiff attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,101.15 in full satisfaction of
any and all claims by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (EAJA). [Doc. 20]. The entire amount of EAJA
fees awarded, however, was seized by the U.S. Treasury Department
pursuant to a lien for Plaintiff’s outstanding student loan debt. [Doc. 21-4].
A new hearing on Plaintiff’s claim was held on October 9, 2013 before
Administrative Law Judge Marshall Riley (ALJ Riley). On December 4,
2013, ALJ Riley issued a decision granting the Plaintiff benefits from his
original alleged onset date of disability and reopening his prior application
for benefits. [Doc. 21-2].
On March 17, 2014, ALJ Riley approved a fee award in the amount of
$9,911.00 for work performed at the administrative level. [See Doc. 21 at
2]. On March 31, 2014, the Social Security Administration issued a Notice
of Award explaining that $17,337.50, representing 25% of the Plaintiff’s
back benefits, was being held from Plaintiff’s award to be applied to the
payment of attorney’s fees in this case. The Plaintiff and his attorney had a
contingency fee agreement pursuant to which any attorney’s fee award
could not exceed 25 percent of the past due benefits. [Doc. 21-6].
Plaintiff’s counsel now seeks an award of $7,337.50 in fees pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1).
[Id.].
The Defendant does not oppose the
Plaintiff’s Motion. [Doc. 22].
2
II.
DISCUSSION
There are two avenues by which a Social Security benefits claimant
may be awarded attorney’s fees. First, claimants may seek a fee award
under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (EAJA), which
provides that “a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United
States fees and other expenses ... incurred by that party in any civil action
(other than cases sounding in tort), including proceedings for judicial review
of agency action, brought by or against the United States in any court
having jurisdiction of that action....” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Second, a
claimant may seek an award pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), which
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 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).
While attorney's fees may be awarded under both the EAJA and §
406(b), the Social Security Act requires that the attorney must refund to the
claimant the smaller fee. “Thus, an EAJA award offsets an award under
Section 406(b), so that the amount of the total past-due benefits the
3
claimant actually receives will be increased by the EAJA award up to the
point the claimant receives 100 percent of the past-due benefits.”
Stephens ex rel. R.E. v. Astrue, 565 F.3d 131, 134-35 (4th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002)). Where counsel
did not receive the prior awarded EAJA fees, however, “there is no
requirement for counsel to refund to the claimant the amount of the smaller
fee.”
Gage v. Colvin, No. 5:12-CV-711-FL, 2014 WL 773523, at *2
(E.D.N.C. Feb. 25, 2014)
Here, the Plaintiff and his counsel entered into a contingency fee
agreement by which the Plaintiff agreed to pay 25% of any past due
benefits awarded to his counsel. As the Fourth Circuit has recognized, Ҥ
406(b) was designed to control, not to displace, fee agreements between
Social Security benefits claimants and their counsel.
As long as the
agreement does not call for a fee above the statutory ceiling of twenty-five
percent of awarded past-due benefits, ... § 406(b) simply instructs a court
to review the agreement for reasonableness.” Mudd v. Barnhart, 418 F.3d
424, 428 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
The Court finds that the services rendered in this Court were
appropriate and reasonable to the relief sought, and the contingency fee
agreement executed by the Plaintiff and his counsel is reasonable.
4
Accordingly, the Motion for Attorney’s Fees under the Social Security Act is
granted.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Attorney Fees under § 406(b) of the Social Security Act [Doc. 21] is hereby
GRANTED and an award of attorney's fees in the amount of Seven
Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty-Seven Dollars and Fifty Cents
($7,337.50) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A) is hereby approved.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order be provided to
the Social Security Administration in order to effectuate payment of the
award from past due benefits which have been withheld for such purpose
pursuant to Title II of the Social Security Act.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 28, 2014
5
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?