Prince v. Colvin

Filing 36

ORDER granting 35 Motion for Attorney Fees and awarding attorney's fees in the amount of $18,616.50. Signed by Honorable Charles Goodwin on 02/19/2020. (jb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SUSAN GAIL PRINCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW SAUL,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-15-933-G

ORDER
Now before the Court is Plaintiff Susan Gail Prince’s Motion for Attorney Fees
Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Doc. No. 35), filed through Plaintiff’s counsel Gayle L.
Troutman. Defendant not responded to the Motion within the time allowed. See LCvR
54.2.
On September 11, 2017, the Court entered a Judgment reversing the
Commissioner’s decision denying Plaintiff’s applications for disability insurance benefits
(“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”) and remanding the case for further
administrative proceedings under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See J. (Doc.
No. 26) at 1. On November 24, 2019, the Social Security Administration issued a favorable
decision on Plaintiff’s applications and found Plaintiff disabled as of September 10, 2010.
See Pl.’s Mot. (Doc. No. 32) at 2; Pl.’s Mot. Att’y Fees Ex. 2 (Doc. No. 35-2) at 1-2. The
Commissioner has notified Plaintiff that up to $18,616.50 of withheld benefits can be
applied toward her attorney’s fees for work done in this action. See Pl.’s Mot. Att’y Fees
at 2; see also id. Ex. 1 (Doc. No. 35-1) at 1 (contingent-fee contract between Plaintiff and

her counsel prescribing that if Plaintiff is awarded benefits after a remand from federal
court, counsel will request the court to approve a fee of “not to exceed 25 percent of the
past-due benefits”). In addition, the Court has previously awarded $6477.00 in attorney’s
fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412 et seq. See
Order of Mar. 9, 2018 (Doc. No. 31).
Subsection 406(b) 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 . . . .
42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). Any such payment must be made “out of, and not in addition
to,” the past-due benefits owed to the claimant. Id. This subsection “does not displace
contingent-fee agreements as the primary means by which fees are set for successfully
representing Social Security benefits claimants in court” so long as the agreed-upon
amount stays within the statute’s “25 percent boundary.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S.
789, 807 (2002). For a fee request that lies within this boundary, “the attorney for the
successful claimant” still “must show that the fee sought is reasonable for the services
rendered.” Id.
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that an award
of $18,616.50, which is 25% of the past-due benefits awarded, is a reasonable fee award
for the work performed in this case in view of the contingent nature of the representation,
the applicable attorney-fee agreement, and the results achieved. While before the Court,
attorneys from Ms. Troutman’s firm filed a detailed opening brief, presenting a well-

2

supported argument that the administrative law judge erred in denying Plaintiff’s DIB and
SSI claims. See Doc. No. 20. The Commissioner filed a brief in opposition, which
Plaintiff’s attorney was required to review. See Doc. No. 24; Pl.’s Mot. Att’y Fees Ex. 4
(Doc. No. 35-4) at 5. Plaintiffs’ attorneys represent that they spent 30.5 hours litigating
Plaintiff’s disability case in federal court, which would result in an effective hourly rate of
$522 with respect to the relevant portion of the requested § 406(b) fee. See Pl.’s Mot. Att’y
Fees at 10-11; id. Ex. 4, at 6; see Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 793, 808 (rejecting the “lodestar”
method of calculating fee awards under § 406(b) but noting that the district court may
consider the hours spent and other factors in contingency-fee cases to help assess “the
reasonableness of the fee yielded by the fee agreement”); cf. Harlan v. Colvin, No. CIV13-477-D, 2015 WL 9295809, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 18, 2015) (awarding $17,429.22
where the putative rate was between $517.95 and $632.64 per hour). Plaintiff and Steve
A. Troutman agreed that the latter may collect attorney’s fees for representation before the
Court in the amount of the currently pending request. See Pl.’s Mot. Att’y Fees Ex. 1, at
1.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. No. 35) is
GRANTED. Plaintiff’s attorney Mr. Steve Troutman is awarded attorney’s fees in the
amount of $18,616.50, to be paid out of the past-due benefits Plaintiff received by reason
of the remand and favorable decision in this case. See 42 U.S.C. 406(b)(1)(A). The Social
Security Administration shall pay this amount directly to: Steve A. Troutman of Troutman
& Troutman, P.C., 1350 South Boulder Avenue, Suite 410, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74119. Upon
payment, Mr. Troutman shall promptly refund to Plaintiff the $6477.00 previously awarded
3

under 28 U.S.C. § 2412. See Order of Mar. 9, 2018, at 1-2; McGraw, 450 F.3d at 497 &
n.2.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of February, 2020.

1

Plaintiff’s counsel represents that the Commissioner likely will release $6000 of the
withheld funds to Plaintiff’s agency representative and that Plaintiff will then apply her
previous fee award toward the present award, as expressly authorized by the representation
agreement. See Pl.’s Mot. Att’y Fees Ex. 1, at 1 (“Claimant expressly authorizes Attorney
to apply the EAJA payment described herein toward any unpaid balance of the fee awarded
by the Court.”). The Commissioner has raised no objection to such an agreement in a
previous case before this Court. See Sumner v. Saul, No. CIV-17-725-G, 2019 WL
4567577, at *2 n.1 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 19, 2019).
4