Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01620/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01620-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 861
Nature of Suit: Social Security - HIA (1395 ff)
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN NUNNES,

Plaintiff, CIV. S. 06-1620 GGH

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ORDER

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

Plaintiff’s counsel, having been awarded $5,000.00 in EAJA fees for court work

in this Social Security disability case, has applied for fees pursuant to the retainer agreement and

42 U.S.C. § 406(b), so that the legally capped 25% of back benefits awarded to plaintiff will be

payable to counsel. That is, counsel seeks $16,145.75 in addition to the already awarded

$5,000.00 so that the 25% figure ($21,145.75) is the amount counsel will actually receive. 

The Commissioner, acting not as an adversary but as an adviser to the court, does

not contest the quality of the work, nor does the undersigned. Counsel was not dilatory in his

work. The case involved matters routinely adjudicated in Social Security disability cases.

Counsel filed for § 406(b) fees giving a brief listing of the hours that he expended

on the case, amounting to a total of 37.7 hours. Counsel did not give information about his

normal billing rate.

Case 2:06-cv-01620-GGH Document 39 Filed 05/25/10 Page 1 of 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

 In practice, the more efficient counsel is in court, the higher will be the hourly fee amount 1

represented in a § 406 fee award. 

2

In Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc), the Ninth Circuit

emphasized the “primacy” of the retainer agreement in assessing whether § 406 fees were

reasonable. Factors which could detract from this primacy were whether counsel’s work was

poor, whether counsel had unnecessarily delayed work in the case (thus resulting in a higher back

pay award from which fees could be computed) or that the § 406 fees requested would constitute

a “windfall.” However, this last term was undefined. Computed hourly rates in the Crawford

1

trilogy of combined cases of up to $900 per hour (computed by dividing the total amount sought

by the number of hours expended) were found to be reasonable.

If the total fees sought by counsel, both from EAJA and § 406 (b) are considered,

counsel’s computed hourly rate would exceed $569 per hour. Although Crawford, almost

grudgingly, permitted a reviewing court to compare the actual computed hourly rate with a

reasonable hourly rate, the Ninth Circuit evidently believes a rate of $900 per hour to be

reasonable. There are no precise standards given in Crawford as to what might seem out of

bounds for a reasonable hourly rate.

Crawford also focused on the fact that in its cases, the attorneys involved, perhaps

with a pang of conscience, did not seek to recover the entire 25% maximum allowed under the

statute. In the view of Crawford, this fact made the attorneys’ requests reasonable. There did not

appear to have been an award of EAJA fees pertinent to the Crawford cases. 

The court is tasked with reviewing the reasonableness of § 406 (b) fee requests

because these fees are taken from the amount of disability benefits, whose payment to the

disability plaintiff has been delayed over the course of the disability adjudication in court. 

Generally, the disability claimants are not well to do. Based on the Crawford court’s finding that

hourly rates of up to $900 were not excessive, counsel’s request for $569.90 per hour appears

acceptable. As such, the undersigned could not apply Crawford and find the § 406(b) fees sought

Case 2:06-cv-01620-GGH Document 39 Filed 05/25/10 Page 2 of 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

3

here unreasonable. Reducing § 406(b) fees after Crawford is a dicey business.

Conclusion

The Commissioner shall pay plaintiff’s counsel in this case the sum of $16,145.75

in § 406(b) attorneys’ fees. The remainder withheld from the back benefits awardable to plaintiff

($5,000.00), i.e. the amount of EAJA fees already paid to plaintiff’s counsel, shall be disbursed

to plaintiff. 

DATED: 05/24/10 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

_______________________________________

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076/Nunnes1620.fees.wpd

Case 2:06-cv-01620-GGH Document 39 Filed 05/25/10 Page 3 of 3