Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03324/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03324-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANET D. CONNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-03324-KAW 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY'S FEES

Re: Dkt. No. 44

Plaintiff Janet D. Conner brought this action seeking review of a final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner" or "Defendant"). The Court granted Plaintiff's 

motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. (Summary 

Judgment Ord., Dkt. No. 23.) Plaintiff's counsel, Harvey P. Sackett, now brings a motion for 

attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), seeking an award of $17,746.00 in fees, payable to Mr. 

Sackett. (Pl's. Mot., Dkt. No. 44.) The Court deems the matter suitable for disposition without 

hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and VACATES the hearing currently set for October 

6, 2016. Having considered the papers filed by the parties and the relevant legal authority, the 

Court GRANTS the motion, for the reasons set forth below.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual background

Plaintiff filed a Title II application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits 

("DIB") on January 22, 2010, and a Title XVI application for Supplemental Security Income 

("SSI") on January 27, 2010. (Summary Judgment Ord. at 1.) Plaintiff alleged that she became 

disabled on June 30, 2007, due to right knee pain, hand pain, back pain, and high blood pressure. 

(Id.) The Social Security Administration ("SSA") denied her applications, and Plaintiff requested 

Case 4:13-cv-03324-KAW Document 49 Filed 10/03/16 Page 1 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ"). (Id. at 1-2.)

At the hearing, Plaintiff testified that she had sustained a knee injury, which resulted in two 

surgeries and therapy, but continued to cause her "dull throbbing pain all the time." (Id. at 2-3.) 

Plaintiff also testified that she has been diagnosed with sciatic nerve, arthritis, and depression, has 

problems with concentration and focus as a result of her pain medication, and can get bad 

headaches, sweats, and trouble sleeping due to some of her medications. (Id. at 3.) A vocational 

expert also testified. (Id. at 4-5.) The ALJ ultimately issued an unfavorable decision, finding that 

Plaintiff had the residual functional capacity to carry 20 pounds occasionally and 10 pounds 

frequently, stand and walk for four hours in an eight-hour workday, sit for six hours in an eighthour workday, and push and pull devices up to 20 pounds. (Id. at 5-6.) In coming to this 

determination, the ALJ placed great weight on the opinion of Dr. Rana, a consultative examiner, 

and some weight to Dr. Charles (who had examined Plaintiff on two occasions), to the extent 

consistent with Dr. Rana's opinion (Id. at 6-7.) The ALJ placed little weight on the opinions of 

Dr. Young, one of Plaintiff's treating physicians, and Dr. Krinsky, who performed Plaintiff's knee 

surgeries. (Id. at 7.) The ALJ explained that Dr. Krinsky's progress notes were inconsistent with 

his assessment of Plaintiff, but did not give any reasons for placing little weight on Dr. Young's 

opinion other than stating that his opinion was based primarily on Plaintiff's "subjective 

complaints." (Id. at 8.) The ALJ concluded that Plaintiff's medical impairments did not preclude 

her from performing her past relevant work, and that Plaintiff had not been under a disability. (Id.

at 9.) The Appeals Court denied review of the ALJ's unfavorable decision, and the ALJ's decision 

became the final decision of the Commissioner. (Id.)

B. Procedural history

Plaintiff filed her suit on July 17, 2013. (Dkt. No. 1.) After the parties filed cross-motions 

for summary judgment, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied 

Defendant's motion for summary judgment on September 10, 2014. (Summary Judgment Ord. at 

1.) The Court found that the ALJ had erred when she placed little weight on Dr. Young's opinion 

without specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Id. at 

10.) The Court also concluded that the ALJ had erred in giving Dr. Rana's opinion outcomeCase 4:13-cv-03324-KAW Document 49 Filed 10/03/16 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

determinative weight. (Id. at 11.) Based on these errors, the Court remanded the case for further 

proceedings. (Id. at 12.) 

On October 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter the judgment, requesting that the Court 

reverse the ALJ's decision and remand the case for immediate payment of benefits. (Dkt. No. 26.) 

On December 12, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion and remanded the case for calculation 

and payment of benefits. (Dkt. No. 33.) On January 9, 2015, the Commissioner filed its own 

motion to alter the judgment, requesting that the Court remand the case for further administrative 

proceedings. (Dkt. No. 35.) On March 24, 2015, the Court granted the Commissioner's motion, 

and remanded the case for further proceedings, consistent with the summary judgment order. 

(Dkt. No. 38.)

On April 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). (Dkt. No. 40.) The Court denied the motion without prejudice, 

requiring the parties to meet and confer. (Dkt. No. 41.) The parties subsequently stipulated for 

the payment of EAJA attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $6,300. (Dkt. Nos. 42, 43.) 

Plaintiff's counsel did not receive the EAJA payment because there was a treasury offset as 

Plaintiff owed an outstanding federal debt. (Pl's. Mot., Exh. D.)

On June 7, 2016, the SSA issued a fully favorable decision, finding that Plaintiff was 

disabled from August 14, 2008 through the date of the decision. (Pl's. Mot., Exh. A.) The SSA 

awarded past-due Social Security benefits of $94,987.60 for February 2009 through May 2016. 

(Pl's. Mot., Exh. B at 4.)

On July 14, 2016, Plaintiff's counsel filed a motion for attorney's fees, seeking $17,746.00 

pursuant to a contingent fee agreement with Plaintiff that permitted Plaintiff's counsel to seek 25% 

of past-due benefits for work performed before the SSA and the courts. (Pl's. Mot. at 2; see also

Pl's. Mot., Exh. C.) The Commissioner filed a response on July 28, 2016, taking no position on 

the reasonableness of the request. (Def.'s Resp. at 5, Dkt. No. 46.) No reply was filed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

42 U.S.C. § 406 governs the award of attorney's fees in social security cases. 42 U.S.C. § 

406(b) governs fees for the representation of a claimant before the court, which is not to exceed 

Case 4:13-cv-03324-KAW Document 49 Filed 10/03/16 Page 3 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

"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). When reviewing a motion for attorney's fees, the 

Court begins its analysis "by looking first to the contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for 

reasonableness." Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 808 (2002). In assessing the 

reasonableness of the fee agreement, the Court considers "'the character of the representation and 

the results the representative achieved.'" Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808). Thus, the Court may apply a downward adjustment in the 

event of "substandard performance, delay, or benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent 

on the case." Id. While the Court is not to start with a lodestar analysis, it may use the lodestar 

analysis as an aid (but not a baseline) to assess the reasonableness of the fee. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff signed a contingent fee agreement that allowed Plaintiff's counsel to recover "a 

fee no greater than 25% of the past-due benefits owed" for representation before both the 

administration and the courts. (Mot., Exh. C at 1.) Plaintiff's counsel seeks $17,746.00, or 

approximately 18.7% of the $94,987.60 awarded to Plaintiff in past-due benefits.

The Court finds that the amount sought by Plaintiff's counsel is reasonable. First, the 

results obtained by Plaintiff's counsel were good, as the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for 

summary judgment and remanded the case to the SSA, where Plaintiff ultimately received a "fully 

favorable decision." (See Mot., Exh. A.) Second, the record reveals no undue delay or 

substandard performance that would warrant a downward adjustment. Third, the amount sought is 

below the cap set by Congress in § 406(b), and is not disproportionate to the time spent by 

Plaintiff's counsel in this action. Plaintiff's counsel spent 49.25 attorney hours on this case, 

representing an effective rate of $360.32/hour. (See Mot., Exh. F.) This rate is comparable to that 

awarded in other social security cases in this district. Compare with Lopez v. Astrue, No. C 07-

2649 PJH, 2011 WL 196885, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2011) (finding reasonable a $14,778 award 

for 33.45 hours of attorney work, an effective rate of $441.79/hour); Cunningham v. Astrue, 10-

cv-4313-LB, 2015 WL 6694097, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2015) (finding reasonable a 

$18,742.50 award for 43 hours of attorney work, an effective rate of $435.86).

Case 4:13-cv-03324-KAW Document 49 Filed 10/03/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

Northern District of California

The Court also finds that it is not necessary to deduct the EAJA award from the $17,746.00 

sought by Plaintiff's counsel. In general, the Court must offset the § 406(b) attorney's fee award 

by any EAJA fee award. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796. This was to "'prevent attorneys from 

receiving double recovery under both the EAJA and § 406(b).'" Boissiere v. Astrue, No. C-09-

02081 JCS, 2011 WL 1045170, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2011) (quoting Jackson v. Comm'r of 

Soc. Sec., 601 F.3d 1268, 1272 (11th Cir. 2010)). In Boissiere, the district court concluded that 

where an EAJA award was not paid to counsel, "no offset is required because the plain language 

of the [EAJA] requires a refund only where an award has 'received fees for the same work.'" Id.

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2412); see also Martel v. Colvin, No. CV 11-2961-CRB, 2015 WL 433505, 

at *1 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2015) ("If the EAJA award did not go to counsel, then an offset is not 

required, as counsel would not have received fees for the same work") (internal quotation 

omitted). In the instant case, although the Court awarded $6,300 in attorney's fees under the 

EAJA, Plaintiff's counsel apparently did not receive that amount because the Department of 

Treasury determined that Plaintiff owed an outstanding federal debt. (Mot., Exh. D.) The Court 

therefore concludes that Plaintiff's counsel "is entitled to the full amount of his fees under § 

406(b), unless Plaintiff has paid any of the EAJA fee award over to [counsel] as of the date of this 

order, in which case, such amount must be refunded to Plaintiff." Boissiere, 2011 WL 1045170, at 

*4.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the motion is GRANTED. The Court awards $17,746.00 in 

attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), to be paid to Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff's counsel must 

refund to Plaintiff any amount of the EAJA award that was paid to Counsel by Plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:13-cv-03324-KAW Document 49 Filed 10/03/16 Page 5 of 5