Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08106/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08106-1/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Daniel Flaherty, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

No. CV 09-08106-PHX-JAT 

ORDER

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 28). 

Plaintiff has also filed a supporting memorandum of points and authorities (Doc. 29) and a 

supplement to his motion (Doc. 30). Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed by Defendant. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff originally filed applications for a period of disability and disability 

insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act before the Commissioner of 

Social Security. Plaintiff’s Title II application was denied initially and again on 

reconsideration. Plaintiff’s application was then denied by an Administrative Law Judge 

(“ALJ”). 

 Following Plaintiff’s denial by the ALJ, Plaintiff hired counsel to represent him on 

appeal to the Social Security Appeals Council. The Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s 

request for review. Plaintiff subsequently hired counsel to file an appeal before this Court 

and counsel filed a complaint on June 19, 2009. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff and counsel entered 

into a fee agreement for counsel’s work before the Court. (Doc. 29-2). The agreement 

Case 3:09-cv-08106-JAT Document 31 Filed 09/30/13 Page 1 of 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 

- 2 -

provides that counsel will be paid 25% of any past due benefits which Plaintiff is 

eventually awarded. 

 On June 28, 2010, the Court vacated the Commissioner’s decision and remanded 

Plaintiff’s claim for further proceedings. (Doc. 16). On September 9, 2010, the Court 

awarded Plaintiff’s counsel $4,975.00 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) 

and ordered that this award of EAJA fees does not preclude Plaintiff’s counsel from 

seeking additional attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), subject to the offset provision 

of the law. (Doc. 26 at 2). 

 On remand before the Commissioner, Plaintiff was eventually awarded $94,791.00 

in past due benefits on May 1, 2013. (Doc. 29-4). This award was for past due benefits 

from November 2005 to June 2012. (Id. at 3). 

 On June 28, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel filed the pending motion for an award of 

attorney’s fees. (Doc. 28). On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a supplement to 

his motion informing the Court that the ALJ had approved a fee request of $10,000.00 for 

time counsel spent representing Plaintiff before the Social Security Administration. (Id. at 

1). Plaintiff’s counsel has also submitted a letter from Plaintiff informing the Court that 

Plaintiff has reviewed the fee petition which counsel filed with this Court, that Plaintiff 

understands the amount counsel is requesting, and that Plaintiff agrees with counsel’s fee 

request. (Doc. 30-2). 

II. ANALYSIS 

 Section 406(b) provides that whenever the Court renders a favorable judgment to a 

social security claimant, the Court can award reasonable attorneys’ fees for representation 

of the claimant. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). The reasonable fee cannot exceed twenty-five 

percent of the total past-due benefits awarded to the claimant. Id. The fee is payable out 

of, and not in addition to, the amount of the past-due benefits. Id. Section 406(b) “does 

not displace contingent-fee agreements as the primary means by which fees are set for 

successfully representing Social Security benefits claimants in court. Rather, § 406(b) 

calls for court review of such arrangements as an independent check, to assure that they 

Case 3:09-cv-08106-JAT Document 31 Filed 09/30/13 Page 2 of 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 

- 3 -

yield reasonable results in particular cases.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 

(2002). The Supreme Court noted that “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.” Id. Therefore, the Court must ensure the fee is 1) 

reasonable, and 2) limited to 25 percent of past-due benefits. 

 This Court must first “respect the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee 

agreements.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1150 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (internal 

quotations omitted). While looking first to this agreement, this Court must still test the 

resulting award for reasonableness. Id. at 1149. In other words, “the district court must 

first look to the fee agreement and then adjust downward if the attorney provided 

substandard representation or delayed the case, or if the requested fee would result in a 

windfall.” Id. at 11511

. In considering reasonableness this Court should consider the 

following non-exhaustive factors: the character of the representation, the results achieved, 

performance, delay, whether the benefits were proportionate to the time spent on the case, 

and, as an aid if necessary, the lodestar calculation. Id. 

 Plaintiff and his counsel had a contingent-fee agreement in this case typical of fee 

agreements in disability benefit cases. The contingent-fee agreement provides that 

Plaintiff “agree[s] to pay [counsel] as [counsel’s] attorney’s fee 25% of any past due 

benefits which [Plaintiff] or [Plaintiff’s] family receives on behalf of [Plaintiff’s] Social 

Security Disability Claim in the event [Plaintiff’s] case is won.” (Doc. 29-2). Plaintiff 

was awarded $94,791.00 in past due benefits. (Doc. 29-4). Twenty-five percent of this 

award is $23,697.75. Plaintiff’s counsel has requested $21,750.00. (Doc. 29 at 11). 

 While counsel has been authorized to charge Plaintiff $10,000.00 for attorney’s 

fees by the Social Security Administration for time spent working on Plaintiff’s claim 

before the Commissioner (Doc. 30-1), this amount is not part of the 25 percent authorized 

by section 406(b). See Clark v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 1211, 1215-16 (9th Cir. 2008) (“an 

 1

 “In the event the court chooses not to give effect to the terms of the agreement, it should 

state for the record the deduction being made and the reasons therefor[ ].” Crawford, 586 

F.3d at 1151 (quoting Rodriquez v. Bowen, 865 F.2d 739, 746 (6th Cir. 1989) (en banc)). 

Case 3:09-cv-08106-JAT Document 31 Filed 09/30/13 Page 3 of 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 

- 4 -

award of attorney's fees under § 406(b) is separate from, and in addition to, any fees 

awarded by the Administration under § 406(a)”). 

 Plaintiff’s counsel argues that the award issued by the Social Security 

Administration erroneously calculates the past due benefits as only covering the period 

from November 2005 through June 2012. (Doc. 29 at 3). Counsel contends that the past 

due benefits should actually cover the period from March 2005 to December 2012 and this 

amount would be $127,026.00. (Id.). Twenty-five percent of this amount is $31,756.50. 

However, the Social Security Administration has awarded Plaintiff $94,791.00 in past due 

benefits, not $127,026.00. (Doc. 29-4). The Court will not change this award. 

 The Court finds $21,750.00 is also a reasonable amount given the factors outlined 

in Crawford v. Astrue. See 586 F.3d at 1151. 

III. CONCLUSION

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees Under 

42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Doc. 28) is granted. Counsel’s fees are approved in the amount of 

$21,750.00. 

 Dated this 27th day of September, 2013. 

Case 3:09-cv-08106-JAT Document 31 Filed 09/30/13 Page 4 of 4