Manzo v. Social Security Administration
Filing
30
OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (doc. # 27 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's counsel is to be awarded $8,462.00, less the EAJA attorney fees of $5,275.31, for a net award of $3,186.69 to be paid from Plaintiff's past-due benefits. See 3-page opinion & order attached. Signed on 8/14/2012 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
JEANIE DEHART MANZO,
Civil No. 10-cv-1062-HZ
Plaintiff,
OPINION & ORDER
vs.
COMMISSIONER of Social Security,
Defendant.
Tim D. Wilborn
WILBORN LAW OFFICE, P.C.
Tim Wilborn, Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 2768
Oregon City, OR 97045
Attorney for Plaintiff
Richard A. Morris
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Office of the General Counsel
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 M/S 901
Seattle, WA 98104-7075
PAGE 1 - OPINION AND ORDER
Adrian L. Brown
U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
District of Oregon
1000 S.W. Third Ave., Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204
Attorneys for Defendant
HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Now before me is an unopposed motion for attorney fees (doc. #27) filed by Jeanie
Dehart Manzo (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff’s motion seeks an award under the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. § 406(b), for attorney fees in the amount of $8,462.00.
STANDARD
42 U.S.C. § 406 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 already 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 increase the accrued amount of past-due
benefits,” or (3) because “the ‘benefits are large in comparison to the amount of time counsel
PAGE 2 - OPINION AND ORDER
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 her attorney, Tim Wilborn (“Wilborn”), are within the statutory limits of 42 U.S.C.
§ 406. In addition, there is no indication that Plaintiff’s counsel was either ineffective or
dilatory. 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. Simply stated, pursuant to the
factors enunciated in Crawford, there are no grounds for reducing the contingent fee arrangement
between Plaintiff and her counsel under the circumstances here. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled
to $3,186.69, which amounts to 25% of her stated retroactive benefits of $33,848 ($8,462.00)
less the $5,275.31 in EAJA attorney fees previously awarded by this court on January 10, 2012.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for attorney fees pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 406(b) (doc. #27) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel is to be awarded $8,462.00, less
the EAJA attorney fees of $5,275.31, for a net award of $3,186.69 to be paid from Plaintiff’s
past-due benefits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this
day of ______________, 2012.
___________________________
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ
United States District Judge
PAGE 3 - OPINION AND 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?