Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00646/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00646-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Brian C. Shapiro, counsel for Plaintiff Daniel Hernandez Olvera, seeks an award of attorney 

fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (Doc. 24) Neither Plaintiff nor the Commissioner of Social 

Security oppose the motion.2 For the following reasons, the motion for attorney fees is GRANTED.

I. Relevant Background

Plaintiff entered into a contingent fee agreement with Brian Shapiro, on behalf of the Law 

Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, on April 16, 2013. (Doc. 24-1) The agreement entitled counsel to an 

award of “25% of the backpay” if judicial review of an administrative decision was required, and the 

adverse decision of an ALJ was reversed. (Id. at 1) The agreement also required counsel to “seek 

compensation under the Equal Access to Justice Act,” and the amount awarded would be credited to 

1 This action was originally brought against Carolyn W. Colvin in her capacity as then-Acting Commissioner. 

(See Doc. 1) Andrew M. Saul, who is now the Commissioner, has been automatically substituted as the defendant in this 

action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

2 The Commissioner filed a response to the motion, in which he offered an “analysis of the requested fees” but 

asserted he was “not in a position to either assent to or object to the §406(b) fees that Counsel seeks.” (Doc. 25 at 2)

DANIEL HERNANDEZ OLVERA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL1,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-0646- JLT

ORDER GRANTING COUNSEL’S MOTION 

FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 

42 U.S.C. § 406(b)

(Doc. 24)

Case 1:16-cv-00646-JLT Document 26 Filed 03/12/20 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff “for fees otherwise payable for that particular work.” (Id.)

On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint for review of the administrative decision denying 

his application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) The Court found the ALJ erred in evaluating the 

medical record and failed to identify legally sufficient reasons for rejecting the limitations identified by 

a treating physician. (Doc. 20 at 7-8) In addition, the ALJ failed to resolve a conflict between the 

testimony of a vocational expert and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. (Id. at 9-13) herefore, the 

Court remanded the matter for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). 

(Id. at 14) Following the entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiff (Doc. 21), the Court awarded $3,700 in 

attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. (Doc. 23 at 1)

Upon remand, an ALJ issued a “fully favorable” decision, finding Plaintiff was disabled 

beginning October 1, 2010. (Doc. 24-2 at 1, 11) On February 16, 2020, the Social Security 

Administration concluded Plaintiff was entitled to monthly benefits from Social Security beginning

March 2011. (Doc. 24-3 at 3) In total, Plaintiff was entitled to $111,887.00 in past-due benefits, from 

which the Commissioner withheld $27,971.75 for payment of Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. (Id.)

Mr. Shapiro filed the motion now before the Court on February 20, 2020, seeking the withheld

fees, in the amount of $27,971.75. (Doc. 24) Mr. Shapiro indicated he should also be directed to 

reimburse Plaintiff the amount of fees previously awarded under the EAJA. (Id. at 3) Plaintiff was 

served with the motion and informed of the right to file a response to indicate whether he agreed or 

disagreed with the requested fees within fourteen days. (Id. at 2, 14) Plaintiff has not opposed the 

motion.

II. Attorney Fees under § 406(b)

An attorney may seek an award of fees for representation of a Social Security claimant who is 

awarded benefits:

Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under [42 USC § 401, 

et seq] 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); see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 794 (2002) (Section 406(b) 

controls fees awarded for representation of Social Security claimants). 

Case 1:16-cv-00646-JLT Document 26 Filed 03/12/20 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A contingency fee agreement is unenforceable if it provides for fees exceeding the statutory 

amount. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807 (“Congress has provided one boundary line: Agreements are 

unenforceable to the extent that they provide for fees exceeding 25 percent of the past-due benefits.”).

III. Discussion and Analysis

District courts “have been deferential to the terms of contingency fee contracts § 406(b) cases.” 

Hern v. Barnhart, 262 F.Supp.2d 1033, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2003). However, the Court must review 

contingent-fee arrangements “as an independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results in 

particular cases.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. In doing so, the Court should consider “the character of 

the representation and the results the representative achieved.” Id. at 808. In addition, the Court should 

consider whether the attorney performed in a substandard manner or engaged in dilatory conduct or 

excessive delays, and whether the fees are “excessively large in relation to the benefits received.” 

Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

Plaintiff entered into the contingent fee agreement in which he agreed to pay twenty-five 

percent of any awarded past-due benefits. (Doc. 24-1 at 1) The Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing

accepted the risk of loss in the representation and expended a total of 33.2 hours while representing 

Plaintiff before the District Court. (Doc. 24 at 3; Doc. 22-4 at 1-4) Due to counsel’s work, the action

was remanded further proceedings, and Plaintiff received a fully favorable decision. For this, Mr. 

Shapiro requests a fee of $27,971.75. (Doc. 24 at 3) Because counsel intends to refund the $3,700.00

that was previously paid under the EAJA, the net cost to Plaintiff is $22,271.75. (Id. at 11) Finally, 

though served with the motion and informed of the right to oppose the fee request (Doc. 24 at 2, 14), 

Plaintiff did not file oppose the request and thereby indicates his implicit belief that the fee request is 

reasonable. 

Significantly, there is no indication that counsel performed in a substandard manner or engaged 

in severe dilatory conduct. Plaintiff was able to secure a remand for payment of benefits following his 

appeal, including an award of past-due benefits. Finally, the fees requested do not exceed twenty-five 

percent maximum permitted under 42 U.S.C. §406(b), or the amount withheld by the administration for 

payment of fees. 

///

Case 1:16-cv-00646-JLT Document 26 Filed 03/12/20 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IV. Conclusion and Order

Based upon the tasks completed and results achieved following the remand for further 

proceedings, the Court finds the fees sought by Mr. Shapiro and the Law Offices of Lawrence D. 

Rohlfing are reasonable. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. Counsel’s motion for attorney fees pursuant to 24 U.S.C. §406(b) in the amount of

$27,971.75 is GRANTED;

2. The Commissioner shall pay the amount directly to Counsel, the Law Offices of 

Lawrence D. Rohlfing; and

3. Counsel SHALL refund $3,700.00 to Plaintiff Daniel Hernandez Olvera.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00646-JLT Document 26 Filed 03/12/20 Page 4 of 4