Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-6_01-cv-06198/USCOURTS-arwd-6_01-cv-06198-0/pdf.json

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

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

RICHARD HUFFMAN PLAINTIFF

Civil No. 01-6198

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, 

Commissioner, Social 

Security Administration DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending now before the undersigned on this 7 day of October, 2005, is the Motion th

For Attorney’s Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) filed on June 23, 2005, by Richard

Muse, attorney for the plaintiff (Doc #17 & 18). The defendant filed her Response on July

14, 2005 (Doc. #19). On August 30, 2002, the undersigned remanded this matter pursuant

to sentence six, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. #15 & 16). According to counsel for the plaintiff,

upon remand, the plaintiff received a favorable decision (Doc. #18, p. 2). 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 his work performed on behalf of the plaintiff

before the administration. A sum total of $15,374.43, or 25% of the past due social security

benefits paid on the plaintiff’s behalf, is being withheld by the Social Security Administration

for the payment of a reasonable attorney’s fee (Doc. #18, p. 2).

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

Case 6:01-cv-06198-BES Document 20 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 3 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.,

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

-2-

the plaintiff is entitled. 

(Doc. #18, 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. Pittman 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

Cir.1989). 

We have reviewed counsel’s Itemized Statement, purporting to itemize 5 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 5 hours for work

performed at the district court level. 

Case 6:01-cv-06198-BES Document 20 Filed 10/07/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

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 to be reasonable, particularly because this lawsuit was originated four (4) years

ago, and has languished upon remand for over three (3) years, through no fault of the

plaintiff or his counsel. 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 $1,250.00, 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 him, 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.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

HONORABLE BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:01-cv-06198-BES Document 20 Filed 10/07/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>