Douda v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
ORDER granting 31 Motion for Attorney Fees per Rule 406b. Signed by Honorable R. Bryan Harwell on 03/09/2017.(bshr, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Civil Action No.: 1:12-cv-01664-RBH
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion [ECF #31] for attorney fees under 42
U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). Plaintiff’s counsel requests an attorney fee award of $8,538.09, which
represents 25% of the past due benefits for Plaintiff.1 On March 3, 2017, Defendant filed a response
indicating no objection to Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees.
Title 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A) 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). In Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, the Supreme Court held that §
406(b) sets a statutory ceiling for attorney fees in social security cases of 25 percent of past-due
benefits and calls for court review of contingency fee agreements to assure that the agreement yields
reasonable results in particular cases. 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). Contingency fee agreements are
unenforceable to the extent that they provide for fees exceeding 25 percent of the past-due benefits.
Plaintiff’s counsel’s previous request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal
Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, was denied on May 15, 2015. See [ECF
Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. When the contingency fee agreement and requested fee do not exceed
25 percent of the past-due benefits, “the attorney for the successful claimant must show that the fee
sought is reasonable for the services rendered.” Id. Even where the requested fee does not exceed
25 percent of past-due benefits, “a reduction in the contingent fee may be appropriate when (1) the
fee is out of line with the ‘character of the representation and the results ...achieved,’ (2) counsel’s
delay caused past-due benefits to accumulate ‘during the pendency of the case in court,’ or (3) pastdue benefits ‘are large in comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case’” (i.e., the
“windfall” factor). Mudd v. Barnhart, 418 F.3d 424, 428 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Gisbrecht, 535 U.S.
In considering whether plaintiff’s counsel would receive a “windfall” from the contingency
fee agreement, the Court is mindful of the fact that “contingency fees provide access to counsel for
individuals who would otherwise have difficulty obtaining representation.” In re Abrams & Abrams,
P.A., 605 F.3d 238, 245 (4th Cir. 2010). As the district court noted in Wilson v. Astrue,
there are occasions in the practice of representing claimants where
a 25 percent contingent fee agreement is reached between the
claimant and counsel, but no fee is awarded because of the result
achieved in the case. Thus, adherence to the 25 percent contingent
fee allowed by statute in a successful case such as this one
recognizes the realities facing practitioners representing social
security claimants and sustains those practitioners so as to allow
them to continue to make their services available to other
622 F. Supp. 2d 132, 136-37 (D.Del. 2008); see also Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 804 (recognizing that
“the marketplace for Social Security representation operates largely on a contingency fee basis”).
Turning to Plaintiff’s counsel’s fee request, the Court notes that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s
counsel entered into a contingency fee agreement dated May 25, 2012, which provided that if
Plaintiff or her family received any past-due benefits after remand or reversal from the federal court,
then Plaintiff agreed to pay Plaintiff’s counsel 25% of past-due benefits due to Plaintiff and her
family. [ECF #31-2]. Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a successful result for Plaintiff and obtained
approximately $34,152.36 in past-due benefits according to the Notice of Award. [ECF #31-3].
There is no indication that counsel caused any unusual delays in the case. After reviewing the
administrative record and briefing by the parties, the Magistrate Judge recommended reversing the
ALJ’s decision denying Plaintiff social security benefits. Defendant filed objections and Plaintiff’s
counsel filed a Reply. On September 26, 2013, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation and remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings. On remand
to the ALJ, Plaintiff was awarded Supplemental Security Income beginning in December 2010.
The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s counsel provided thorough and adequate representation of
Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s counsel’s fee request is reasonable and not in excess of 25% of Plaintiff’s past
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion [ECF #31] for attorney
fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 9, 2017
Florence, South Carolina
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
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?