Jaaska, Brian v. Berryhill, Nancy et al
Filing
23
ORDER granting 19 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff awarded attorney fees in the amount of $2,363.17. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 2/21/2019. (voc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BRIAN JAASKA,
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
17-cv-292-bbc
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On September 15, 2017, I granted the parties’ joint motion to remand this case for
further proceedings before an administrative law judge, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). Dkt. ##14-15. On October 26, 2017, I accepted the parties’ stipulation on fees under
the Equal Access to Justice Act and awarded plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of $4,930.83.
Dkt. ##17-18. Now before the court is a motion filed by plaintiff Brian Jaaska’s counsel, Dana
Duncan, for attorney fees, following a favorable decision from the administrative judge on
remand. Dkt. #19. Defendant does not oppose the motion. Dkt. #22.
Counsel reports that he and plaintiff have a contingency fee agreement providing for
attorney fees amounting to 25 percent of an award of past-due benefits.
administrative law judge awarded past-due benefits from
On remand, the
which the Social Security
Administration withheld 25 percent or $14,294.00 for attorney fees. Counsel has submitted an
accounting showing 21.40 hours in attorney time and 11.15 hours in paralegal time spent on
plaintiff’s case in this court. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), counsel requests an order awarding
a fee for court work in the amount of $2,363.17 (equal to $14,294.00 less the previously
awarded EAJA fee of $4,930.83 and $7,000.00 in fees that will be sought through the agency
for work at the administrative level) to be payable out of plaintiff’s past-due benefits.
The requested fee is within the statutory cap and the parties’ contingency fee agreement,
but the court must nevertheless review it to be sure that it is reasonable in light of the character
of the representation and the results obtained; the time, labor and skill required; the attorney’s
experience, reputation, and ability; and awards in similar cases. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S.
789, 807-09 (2002); McGuire v. Sullivan, 873 F.2d 974, 979-83 (7th Cir. 1989). Here, the
requested award is reasonable. Counsel seeks a total of $7,294.00 in fees for 21.40 hours of
attorney work at an hourly rate of approximately $302, plus additional compensation for 11.15
hours of work by paralegal staff at an hourly rate of approximately $75. Koester v. Astrue, 482
F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1083 (E.D. W is. 2007) (collecting cases showing that district courts have
awarded representative fees that reflect hourly rates as high as $400 to $1,500). See also Richlin
Secretary Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 581 (2008) (reasonable attorney fees under
EAJA includes paralegal time); Beach v. Berryhill, No. 14-cv-857-bbc, 2017 W L 3275546, at *2
(W .D. W is. Aug. 1, 2017) (awarding $200 an hour for paralegal work).
Counsel is an
experienced attorney who represented plaintiff in this court, reviewed the administrative record,
drafted a motion for summary judgment, prompted and negotiated a stipulated remand, which
resulted in a favorable determination below. In addition, defendant does not oppose the motion.
Accordingly, I will grant counsel’s motion for attorney fees in the amount of $2,363.17.
2
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for attorney fees filed by plaintiff’s attorney, Dana
Duncan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), dkt. #19, is GRANTED. The court approves a
representative fee award of $2,363.17 to be payable to Dana Duncan out of the statutory fee
withheld from plaintiff Brian Jaaska’s past-due benefits.
Entered this 21st day of February, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_________________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge
3
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?