Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_01-cv-06007/USCOURTS-arwd-6_01-cv-06007-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405g Review of HHS Decision (RSI)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

BILLY CAPSHAW PLAINTIFF

Civil No. 01-6007

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending now before the undersigned on this 6 day of January, 2006, is the Motion th

For Attorney’s Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) filed on October 16, 2005, by Shannon

Muse Carroll, attorney for the plaintiff (Doc #25). The defendant filed her Response on

November 9, 2005 (Doc. #26). On September 19, 2002, the undersigned remanded this

matter pursuant to sentence four, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. #17 & 18). On November 12,

2002, counsel for the plaintiff filed an Application for Attorney’s Fees Under the Equal

Access to Justice Act, seeking an award of $4,893.75 (Doc. #19-21). Counsel for the

defendant did not object (Doc. #22). On April 10, 2003, the undersigned granted counsel’s

application and awarded an attorney’s fee of $2,275.00, for work performed before this

court, under the EAJA. 

According to counsel for the plaintiff, upon remand, the plaintiff received a favorable

decision (Doc. #25). Counsel now seeks approval of an attorney’s fee in the amount of

$4,750.00, which amount, he asserts, represents 19 hours at $250.00 per hour for her work

performed on behalf of the plaintiff before the administration. A sum total of $13,209.80, or

25% of the past due social security benefits paid on the plaintiff’s behalf, is being withheld

Case 6:01-cv-06007-BES Document 27 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Other circuits which have addressed the issue agree that the aggregate of fees 1

awarded at the judicial and administrative levels may not exceed twenty-five percent of past

due benefits. Guido v. Schweiker, 775 F.2d 107, 108 (3d Cir.1985); Morris v. Social Sec.

Admin., 689 F.2d 495, 497-98 (4th Cir.1982); Webb v. Richardson, 472 F.2d 529, 536 (6th

Cir.1972); Dawson v. Finch, 425 F.2d 1192, 1195 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 830, 91

S. Ct. 60, 27 L. Ed.2d 60 (1970); see also Harris v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs.,

-2-

by the Social Security Administration for the payment of a reasonable attorney’s fee (Doc.

#25, Affidavit).

Further, counsel for the plaintiff asserts:

That in the event this Court is able to award payment of attorney’s fees for

services rendered on behalf of the plaintiff before this Court in the amount of

$4,750.00, 19 hours x $250.00/hour, and not for time spent before the Social

Security Administration, affiant would request that he be allowed to petition

additionally to the [SSA] for the balance of his fee to him, the total amount of

said fee, however, not to exceed 25% of the total past due benefits to which

the plaintiff is entitled. 

(Doc. #25, Affidavit, p. 3). The matter of attorney’s fees for services performed at the

administrative level is committed by 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1), to the responsibility of the

Commissioner, and such fees may not be awarded by the courts. Pitman v. Sullivan, 911

F.2d 42, 45 (8th Cir.1990). Thus, we decline to approve an award of attorney’s fee for time

spent before the agency.

The defendant has not offered an objection to the approval of a reasonable award for

court-related representation. Attorney's fees for representation at the district court level are

limited by 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1), not to exceed twenty-five percent of past due benefits. We

note this so that the Commissioner may coordinate any fees granted for services at the

administrative level with its award, approved herein, so that the total allowed fee would not

exceed twenty-five percent of past due benefits. Davis v. Bowen, 894 F.2d 271, 273 (8th 1

Case 6:01-cv-06007-BES Document 27 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

836 F.2d 496, 498 n. 1 (10th Cir.1987) (noting agreement among circuits).

-3-

Cir.1989). 

We have reviewed counsel’s Itemized Statement, purporting to itemize 19 hours spent

in the representation of plaintiff before the district court, and find the time claimed to be

reasonable. Thus, it appears counsel is entitled to compensation for 19 hours for work

performed at the district court level. 

In determining the applicable hourly rate, we note that the United States Court of

Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has found the lodestar approach more consistent with the

statutory mandate of a reasonable fee, with 25% of past due benefits representing the

However, with respect to the award of a fee for work performed in district court, the

defendant does not object to the amount of the § 406(b) fee, and the undersigned finds the

hourly rate of $150.00 to be reasonable. It is uncontroverted that plaintiff’s counsel must

return the lesser of the two fees, if indeed both a § 406(b) and an EAJA fee are awarded, to

prevent double recovery. 

Accordingly, this Court approves a fee in the amount of $2,850.00, to be paid to

counsel, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 

Counsel may petition the SSA for the balance of the fee he asserts is due to her, the

total fee award not to exceed 25% of the total of past due benefits to which the plaintiff is

entitled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 6:01-cv-06007-BES Document 27 Filed 01/06/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

HONORABLE BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:01-cv-06007-BES Document 27 Filed 01/06/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>