Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02240/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02240-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

MARSHALL F. HUNKAPILLER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-03-2240 SC

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

FOR AWARD OF

ATTORNEY'S FEES

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Marshall F. Hunkapiller ("Plaintiff") filed his

Notice of Motion and Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees on

October 19, 2007. Docket No. 31. On February 12, 2008, the Court

issued a briefing schedule, requiring Defendant Michael J. Astrue,

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Defendant" or

"Commissioner"), to submit his Opposition to the Motion, if any,

no later than February 29, 2008. See Docket No. 33. Two months

have passed since Defendant was to have filed his Opposition, yet

he has not done so. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff's

unopposed Motion.

II. BACKGROUND

In January 1999, Plaintiff filed an application for

disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social

Security Act, alleging that he became disabled in August 1998. 

Case 3:03-cv-02240-SC Document 34 Filed 04/29/08 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

This summary of the proceedings below is taken largely from

the November 20, 2006, and December 20, 2004 rulings of the

Administrative Law Judges in this matter, attached as Exhibit A to

Plaintiff's Motion.

2

Plaintiff retained Mr. Sackett to represent him. Pursuant to

their contract, Mr. Sackett's compensation was contingent upon a

successful recovery of past-due benefits, and was limited to no

more than 25% of the amount recovered. 

In the first review of Plaintiff's case, the Administrative

Law Judge ("ALJ") issued an unfavorable opinion, concluding that

Plaintiff was not disabled and could return to work.1 Plaintiff

sought review of this decision, and the Appeals Council vacated

the ruling and remanded for further proceedings before the ALJ. 

In August 2002, the ALJ concluded on remand that Plaintiff was not

disabled and could resume his prior work as an insurance agent or

find other suitable employment. In March 2003, the Appeals

Council denied Plaintiff's request to review the ALJ's second

ruling. Plaintiff brought this action in May 2003, seeking

judicial review of the Commissioner's final ruling. 

Plaintiff then moved for summary judgment in this matter. 

Following Plaintiff's motion, the parties stipulated to remand. 

The Court remanded the case to the ALJ for further review,

providing guidance on a number of issues. On remand, the ALJ in

December 2004, issued a partially favorable decision, finding

Plaintiff disabled as of August 2001, but not as far back as

August 1998. Plaintiff appealed this ruling and the Appeals

Council vacated and remanded. Finally, in November 2006, the ALJ

issued a fully favorable ruling, concluding that Plaintiff was

Case 3:03-cv-02240-SC Document 34 Filed 04/29/08 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

disabled as of August 30, 1998, and was entitled to recover pastdue benefits from that date forward.

Following the partially favorable decision, the Social

Security Administration ("SSA") withheld $15,572.50 (25% of

$62,290) from Plaintiff's past due benefits to cover any possible

award of attorney's fees. See Mot. Ex. B. After the final, fully

favorable ruling, the SSA withheld an additional $12,376.50. Id.

By the present Motion, Plaintiff seeks attorney's fees in the

amount of $16,494.00. This amount would be offset by the

$7,654.42 in attorney's fees Plaintiff previously received

pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). See Docket

No. 30.

III. DISCUSSION

Although Defendant did not oppose Plaintiff's Motion, the

Court has reviewed the record. Judicial review of the fee award

serves as an independent check on the reasonableness of the fee

arrangement. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). 

Sections 406(a) and 406(b) of Title II of the Social Security

Act govern fees for representation of disability claimants before

the SSA and in federal court. Section 406(b)(1)(A) provides, in

part:

Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable

to a claimant under this title who was

represented before the court by an attorney,

the court may determine and allow as part of

its judgment a reasonable fee for such

representation, not in excess of 25 percent of

the total of the past-due benefits to which

the claimant is entitled by reason of such

judgment. . . .

Case 3:03-cv-02240-SC Document 34 Filed 04/29/08 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). The attorney's fees provided for in

this section are payable from funds withheld from Plaintiff's

past-due disability benefits by the SSA. See, e.g., Hearn v.

Barnhart, 262 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2003). "A court

may exercise its discretion to reduce an attorney's contractual

recovery based on the character of the representation and the

result achieved." Id. (citing Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808).

Having reviewed the record here, the Court finds that Mr.

Sackett's fee arrangement with Plaintiff was reasonable for the

work Mr. Sackett did over the course of the representation, and

therefore finds no reason to reduce the recovery. First, Mr.

Sackett's requested fee of $16,494.00 represents roughly 14.75% of

Plaintiff's total recovery, $111,796.00, well below the statutory

maximum of 25%. See Hearn, 262 F. Supp. 2d at 1036. Second,

there was a substantial risk of loss in this case, as Plaintiff

suffered from a number of ailments which were difficult to

diagnose and prove, as demonstrated throughout the numerous

hearings and appeals before the SSA. See id. at 1036-67. Third,

an elevated hourly rate is appropriate in light of Mr. Sackett's

significant experience in Social Security litigation and in light

of the section 406(b) requirement that the fees be contingent in

nature. See id. at 1037. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons described above, the Court finds the

requested fee reasonable and GRANTS Plaintiff's unopposed Motion

for an Award of Attorney's Fees. Mr. Sackett shall collect

Case 3:03-cv-02240-SC Document 34 Filed 04/29/08 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

$16,494.00 from the funds withheld by the SSA and shall reimburse

Plaintiff the $7,654.42 previously paid pursuant to the EAJA.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2008

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-02240-SC Document 34 Filed 04/29/08 Page 5 of 5