Schoonmaker v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 45

ORDER granting 44 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 7/17/19. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

SHANA JOLENE SCHOONMAKER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-1145-R

ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion for Attorney Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), filed on
June 18, 2019, by Plaintiff’s attorney, Gayle L. Troutman. (Doc. 44). Plaintiff’s counsel
seeks an award of $15,865.00 for legal work performed before this Court. Defendant did
not file a response. Having considered counsel’s request, the Court finds as follows.
42 U.S.C. § 406(b) governs attorneys’ fees for proceedings before this Court and
states in relevant part:
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). On October 5, 2017, the Court entered Judgment in favor of
Plaintiff and remanded this matter to the Commissioner for additional proceedings. See
Docs. 32–33. On remand, Plaintiff was found to have been disabled and, therefore, was
entitled to an award of past due benefits totaling $63,460.00, thus precipitating the instant

motion. To facilitate any potential fee award, the Commissioner withheld twenty-five
percent of the past-due amount for attorneys’ fees. As noted, Plaintiff’s counsel now seeks
fees of $15,865.00, which constitutes twenty-five percent of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits.
The request is consistent with the attorney fee agreement executed by Plaintiff and counsel.
See Doc. 44-1.
A motion for fees under § 406(b) must be filed within a reasonable time. The
Commissioner notified Plaintiff’s counsel via letter dated June 10, 2019, of the favorable
determination and award of benefits to Plaintiff. See Doc. 44-2. Counsel filed the instant
application on June 18, 2019. The Court finds the motion was filed within a reasonable
time of the issuance of the award. Accordingly, the Court must consider whether the fee
request is reasonable.
Where, as here, a fee agreement is in place, the Court must examine the
reasonableness of its terms and reduce an award as appropriate “based on the character of
the representation and the results the representative achieved.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535
U.S. 789, 808 (2002). As noted, Plaintiff and counsel agreed to a twenty-five percent
contingency fee. In support of the motion and her burden to establish that the fee request
is reasonable, counsel attached a time report demonstrating that thirty-seven hours of
attorney time and six hours of paralegal time were devoted to work before this Court. See
Doc. 44-4. After considering the extent of work performed, the result obtained, and the fee
award sought, the Court finds the amount to be a reasonable fee for the work performed.
The benefit award to Plaintiff justifies the amount of time spent by the firm handling the

case and the evidence before the Court offers nothing to suggest the character of the
representation or the results achieved were in any way deficient. There is no suggestion
that counsel was not diligent in her representation or the cause of any delay. Thus, the Court
finds the fee requested reasonable. However, because Plaintiff’s counsel previously sought
and received a $7,986.40 fee award pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”),
28 U.S.C. § 2412, see Doc. 40, she must refund that amount to Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the instant motion (Doc. 44) is GRANTED. The Court hereby awards
Plaintiff’s counsel a fee of $15,865.00. While Gayle Troutman filed this motion as attorney
for Plaintiff, the fee check should be made payable to Steve A. Troutman, of Troutman &
Troutman, P.C., the signatory to the fee contract on behalf of the firm, per Ms. Troutman’s
request in the motion. See Doc. 44, at 14.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2019.