Chaffee v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
27
OPINION & ORDER: The motion for attorney fees pursuant to § 406(b) 24 filed by Wilborn is GRANTED. Wilborn is hereby awarded $8,857.75, less total EAJA fees of $3,869.01, for a net award of $4,988.74 to be paid from Plaintiff's past-due benefits. See 4-page opinion & order attached. Signed on 12/13/2013 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ROBERT LEE CHAFFEE,
Plaintiff,
No. 1:11-cv-01122-HZ
OPINION & ORDER
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
Tim D. Wilborn
WILBORN LAW OFFICE, P.C.
P.O. Box 370578
Las Vegas, NV 89137
Attorney for Plaintiff
Adrian L. Brown
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
District of Oregon
1000 S.W. Third Ave., Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204
Benjamin J. Groebner
1 - OPINION & ORDER
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTATION
Office of General Counsel
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
M/S 221A
Seattle, WA 98104-1075
Attorneys for Defendant
HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Now before me is an unopposed motion for attorney fees (doc. #24) filed by the
attorney for Plaintiff, Tim Wilborn. Wilborn seeks an award under the Social Security
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (“§ 406(b)”), for attorney fees in the amount of $8,857.75. For
the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
STANDARD
Section 406(b) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
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).
The amount awarded is reduced by the amount of attorney fees awarded
under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S.
789, 796 (2002).
DISCUSSION
In determining a § 406(b) fee request, the court must start with the amount agreed
upon by the claimant and her attorney, evaluating only whether that amount should be
reduced for one of three reasons: (1) because “the attorney provided substandard
representation,” (2) because “the attorney . . . engaged in dilatory conduct in order to
2 - OPINION & ORDER
increase the accrued amount of past-due benefits,” or (3) because “the ‘benefits are large
in comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case.’” Crawford v. Astrue,
586 F.3d 1142, 1148-49 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at
808).
Here, the terms of the contingent-fee agreement between Plaintiff and Wilborn are
within the statutory limits of § 406(b). The attorney fees Wilborn seeks amounts to 25%
of the retroactive benefits awarded to Plaintiff. See Mem. in Supp., Ex. 1, p. 6. In
addition, there is no indication that Plaintiff’s counsel was either ineffective or dilatory.
Furthermore, the ratio of the number of hours worked by Wilborn and the amount of fees
requested amount to an effective hourly rate of $326.10 ($8,857.75 ÷ 21.1 hours =
$419.80 per hour). The benefits are also not so large in comparison to the amount of time
counsel spent on the case that a reduction of Plaintiff’s fee request is justified.
Pursuant to the factors enunciated in Crawford, there are no grounds for reducing
the contingent fee arrangement between Plaintiff and Wilborn. Accordingly, Wilborn is
entitled to an award of $8,857.75, less total EAJA fees of $3,869.01, for a net award of
$4,988.74 to be paid from Plaintiff’s past-due benefits.
///
///
///
///
///
///
3 - OPINION & ORDER
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for attorney fees pursuant to § 406(b) (doc.
#24) filed by Wilborn is GRANTED. Wilborn is hereby awarded $8,857.75, less total
EAJA fees of $3,869.01, for a net award of $4,988.74 to be paid from Plaintiff’s past-due
benefits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this
day of ____________, 2013.
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge
4 - OPINION & ORDER
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?