Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01965/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01965-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

V

>

ci | |||„»POWa»

1

2 K? OCT

3

4

0*BSf#

rfV<‘3>Y 5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 CHARLES VINCENT SHORTS, Case No.: 3:15-cv-Q1965-BEN-KSC

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING COUNSEL’S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES

PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)

13 v.

14 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security, 15

Defendant.

16

17

Before the Court is Counsel’s motion for attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

406(b) filed by Young Cho, the attorney representing PlaintiffCharles Vincent Shorts.

(Docket No. 27). The motion seeks the payment of attorney fees in the amount of

$12,300.00 with a credit to Plaintifffor the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) fees

that this Court awarded in the amount of $6,500.00. For the reasons set forth below,

Counsel’s motion is GRANTED.

18

19

20

21

22

23

III 24

III 25

III 26

III 27

III 28

l

3:15-cv-01965-BEN-KSC

Case 3:15-cv-01965-BEN-KSC Document 30 Filed 10/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
1 BACKGROUND

Plaintiffwas diagnosed with a malignant, inoperable, lethal brain stem tumor (or

“glioma”) in 2010. He applied for disability insurance benefits, but the Administrative

Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that Plaintiffwas not disabled because his pain testimony was

“not entirely credible.” Plaintiff appealed the denial of benefits to this Court.

On February 6, 2017, the Court ruled in Plaintiffs favor, reversing and remanding

for an award of benefits. The Commissioner effectuated this Court’s decision, issuing a

notice indicating retroactive benefits of $49,461.00. The Commissioner withheld 25% of

past due benefits, or $12,365.25, to pay Plaintiffs Counsel.

Now before the Court, Counsel requests a fee of $12,300.00 under the contingency

fee contract. Counsel worked 42.4 hours on this case and has provided the Court with

time summaries. He has also provided the Court with the contingency fee agreement and

information pertaining to the average and median hourly rates that attorneys make in the

California region. (Docket No. 27, Exs. 2-5).

LEGAL STANDARD

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

The Social Security Act provides:

Whenever 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 ofitsjudgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in

excess of 25 percent ofthe total ofthe past-due benefits to which the

claimant is entitled by reason ofsuch judgment, and the Commissioner of

Social Security may ... certify the amount ofsuch fee for payment to such

attorney out of, and not in addition to, the amount ofsuch past-due benefits.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

42 U.S.C. § 406(b); see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. at 789 (2002). In

determining an award under section 406(b), courts first look to the contingency fee

agreement, then test it for reasonableness. Id. at 808. To aid the Court in assessing

reasonableness, the Court may require the claimant’s attorney to submit a record ofthe

hours spent representing the claimant and a statement ofthe lawyer’s normal hourly

billing charge for noncontingent-fee cases. Id.

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

3:15-cv-01965-BEN-KSC

Case 3:15-cv-01965-BEN-KSC Document 30 Filed 10/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
1 DISCUSSION

2 Contingency Fee Agreement

On February 19,2015, Mr. Cho and Mr. Shorts entered a contingency fee

agreement. (Docket No. 27-2). Mr. Shorts agreed that counsel’s fee would be “25% of

the back pay awarded upon reversal of any unfavorable ALJ decision for work before the

court.” Id. There is no evidence the fee agreement was entered into involuntarily, or that

it benefits the attorney more than the client. Mr. Cho’s request of $12,300 is slightly less

than the 25% of back pay agreed to in the contingency agreement and set aside by the

Social Security Administration. The requested amount does not exceed the 25% limit

imposed by 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).

Reasonableness

In Gisbrecht, the Supreme Court directed lower courts to consider “the character of

the representation and the results the representative achieved” to determine

“reasonableness.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808. A court may properly reduce the fee for

substandard performance, delay, or benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent on

the case. Id/, Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 2009).

Here, Counsel seeks a fee of $12,300 ofthe past-due benefits paid or payable to

Plaintiff. The Social Security Administration calculates Plaintiffs past-due benefits at

$49,461.00. (Docket No. 27). In using the reasonableness test laid out in Gisbrecht,

there is no evidence to indicate that Counsel’s representation was inadequate or

insufficient. On the contrary, the case went in favor ofthe Plaintiff and was remanded

for the calculation and award ofbenefits. And, there is no evidence that suggests any

delay on Counsel’s part.

Regarding the last factor, Counsel is asking for $12,300 out ofthe $49,461.00 that

was awarded to Plaintifffor past due benefits. Counsel spent 42.4 hours before the

District Court concerning this case. This would equate to Counsel charging

approximately $290 per hour, which is less than the $439 per hour rate that the average

attorney charges in the California region. (Docket No. 27, Exs. 3-5).

A.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 B.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

3:15-cv-01965-BEN-KSC

Case 3:15-cv-01965-BEN-KSC Document 30 Filed 10/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
i

Based on its review, the Court finds that the requested fee is reasonable.

C. EAJA Set Qff

A section 406(b) fee award must be offset by any award of attorney’s fees granted

under the EAJA. The claimant’s attorney must “refund to the claimant the amount of’

the EAJA fee awarded. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796.

Here, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion for attorney’s fees and costs under

the EAJA in the amount of $6,500. (Docket No. 26). Therefore, the requested fee will be

offset by the $6,500 in EAJA fees already awarded.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Counsel’s motion for attorney fees (Docket No.

27) is GRANTED. The Commissioner is ORDERED to pay Counsel $12,300.00.

Counsel is ORDERED to reimburse Mr. Shorts $6,500.00.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 Dated: Septembei^^r2017

16 __,

/Hop^ogerT^Benitez

17 Utiited States District Judge

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

3:15-cv-01965-BEN-KSC

Case 3:15-cv-01965-BEN-KSC Document 30 Filed 10/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4