Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01897/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01897-1/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)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW P. ZUTIS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner, Social Security Administration,

Defendant. /

No. C 12-01897 WHA

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

AND VACATING HEARING

In this social security appeal, Attorney Harvey P. Sackett, counsel for plaintiff Andrew P.

Zutis, Jr., moves for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 406(b). For the reasons

stated herein, Attorney Sackett’s motion is GRANTED.

Zutis applied for Social Security disability insurance and was denied twice. Eventually,

an administrative law judge rendered a partially-favorable decision resulting in $12,123.00 in

retroactive benefits. The Appeals Council affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Zutis subsequently filed

an appeal of that decision in federal court in April 2012. In October 2012, the parties’ stipulation

to remand for further administrative proceedings was approved (Dkt. No. 18). Following remand,

an ALJ rendered a fully-favorable decision, resulting in an additional $60,317.00 in retroactive

benefits. Thus Zutis received a total of $72,440.00 in past-due benefits. 

Attorney Sackett represented Zutis in both administrative hearings and his court

appearance. Attorney Sackett and Zutis entered a contingent-fee agreement pursuant to which

Attorney Sackett would retain 25% of past-due benefits if Zutis “receive[d] a favorable decision

at any time following an unfavorable or partially favorable administrative law judge decision

Case 3:12-cv-01897-WHA Document 32 Filed 06/16/15 Page 1 of 3
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

2

either at any administrative level or at the judicial level” (Mot., Exh. C). SSA approved the fee

agreement (Mot., Exh. A). 

Attorney’s fees for successful representation of Social Security disability claimants is

governed by 42 U.S.C. 406. Section 406(a) governs attorney’s fees for successful representation

in administrative proceedings. Such fees are awarded by the Commissioner of Social Security. 

Section 406(b) governs attorney’s fees for successful representation in court. Such fees are

awarded by the court. In the present case, the Commissioner previously awarded Sackett

$9,030.75 in attorney’s fees under Section 406(a) for work done in obtaining both partially- and

fully-favorable decisions. Attorney Sackett now moves for an award of attorney’s fees under

Section 406(b) in the amount of $9,079.00 — the balance of the 25% past-due contingency fee. 

Neither Zutis nor the Commissioner oppose the attorney’s fees motion. As Attorney Sackett

recognizes, the requested amount would be offset by a previously-approved EAJA payment of

$5,250.00, for a net fee of $3,829.00. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002)

(“[A]n EAJA award offsets an award under Section 406(b)[.]”) . 

* * *

Section 406(b) of Title II of the Social Security Act provides that a court may award a

reasonable attorney’s fees for successful representation “not in excess of 25 percent of the total

past-due benefits[.]” Section 406(b) is read broadly “to include all ‘substantial work done before

the court’ even when the attorney’s work results only in a remand to the agency . . . so long as the

‘claimant eventually is awarded past-due benefits, whether at the agency level or during further

judicial proceedings.’” Parrish v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., 698 F.3d 1215, 1221

(9th Cir. 2012) (quoting McGraw v. Barnhart, 450 F.3d 493, 502 (10th Cir. 2006)). In Gisbrecht,

535 U.S. at 807, the Supreme Court held that Section 406(b) “calls for court review of

[contingent-fee arrangements] as an independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable

results[.]” Our court of appeals look to factors such as quality of representation, excessive delay

causing undue accumulation of past-due benefits, and potential windfall fees in determining

reasonableness. See Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2009) (referring to

factors considered in Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 808 (2002)). 

Case 3:12-cv-01897-WHA Document 32 Filed 06/16/15 Page 2 of 3
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

In the present case, Attorney Sackett appealed the partially-favorable decision on behalf of

Zutis, and the action was remanded to SSA. Following remand, an ALJ issued a fully-favorable

decision and awarded additional past-due benefits. As such, Attorney Sackett is entitled to

attorney’s fees for services performed in court that resulted in the successful claim. Although

Attorney Sackett’s motion for attorney’s fees comes approximately seven months after SSA sent

Zutis the Notice of Award, this will be considered within reasonable time. Section 406(b) does

not specify a time deadline for motions for attorney’s fees, and our court of appeals has not

addressed this issue of timeliness. This slight delay has not affected Zutis or caused any undue

burden, so the motion will be considered timely. 

Attorney Sackett’s requested fee is also reasonable. First, the request is made pursuant

to a 25% contingent-fee agreement between himself and Zutis. There is no evidence of fraud

or overreaching in making the contingent-fee agreement. Furthermore, the record indicates

high-quality representation by Attorney Sackett (See Zutis Decl. ¶ 5). Second, Attorney Sackett

did not cause any undue delay so that past-due benefits could accumulate. Third, the requested

fee is not excessively large compared to the attained benefits. Attorney Sackett expended 28.35

hours in representing this matter in court, resulting in a $320.30 requested hourly rate (Mot., Exh.

E). This included reasonable time spent preparing Zutis’s complaint and motion for summary

judgment. The requested contingency fee reflects the substantial risk of loss Attorney Sackett

assumed, as Zutis’s application had already been denied in whole or in part at four levels of SSA

review before he commenced this suit. The requested amount will also be significantly offset by

the EAJA award that Attorney Sackett has already received. Furthermore, Attorney Sackett will

not receive any percentage of future benefits paid to Zutis, which are likely to be substantial. 

Thus, Attorney Sackett is awarded $9,079.00, subject to the credit of $5,250.00, for a net fee

award of $3,829.00. The hearing on the motion previously set for June 18, 2015 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 16, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:12-cv-01897-WHA Document 32 Filed 06/16/15 Page 3 of 3