Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01046/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01046-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:416 Denial of Social Security Benefits

---

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PATRICK J. MACDONALD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social 

Security, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-1046-EFB 

ORDER 

 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), counsel for plaintiff in the above-entitled action seeks an 

award of attorney fees in the amount of $15,000, which is 18.4 percent of past benefits due to 

plaintiff. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff entered into a retainer agreement with his attorney which 

provides that he would pay counsel 25 percent of any past-due benefits won as a result of the 

appeal in this case. ECF No. 23-2. Counsel spent 14.6 professional hours on plaintiff’s case, and 

a paralegal spent an additional 2.4 hours on the case. ECF No. 23-5. 

 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A) provides, in relevant part: 

Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under 

this subchapter 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 2:16-cv-01046-EFB Document 25 Filed 04/10/20 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 

27 

28 

2 

Rather than being paid by the government, fees under the Social Security Act are awarded 

out of the claimant’s disability benefits. Russell v. Sullivan, 930 F.2d 1443, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991), 

receded from on other grounds, Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140, 1149 (9th Cir. 1991). 

However, the 25 percent statutory maximum fee is not an automatic entitlement; the court also 

must ensure that the requested fee is reasonable. Bisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 808-09 

(2002) (“We hold that § 406(b) does not displace contingent-fee agreements within the statutory 

ceiling; instead, § 406(b) instructs courts to review for reasonableness fees yielded by those 

agreements.”). “Within the 25 percent boundary . . . the attorney for the successful claimant must 

show that the fee sought is reasonable for the services rendered.” Id. at 807. A “court may 

properly reduce the fee for substandard performance, delay, or benefits that are not in proportion 

to the time spent on the case.” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 2009) (en 

banc). 

After this court remanded for further proceedings, plaintiff was found disabled and 

awarded past-due benefits in the amount of $81,553.72. ECF No. 23 at 9. Plaintiff’s counsel’s 

request for $15,000, which is less than the statutory maximum, would constitute an hourly rate of 

$974.03.1 Counsel did not delay these procedures and his representation of plaintiff was not 

substandard. Indeed, he successfully represented his client’s interests before this court. Although 

the hourly rate exceeds the rate awarded in the majority of social security cases, based on the risk 

of loss taken in representing plaintiff, counsel’s experience in the field of Social Security law, and 

the results achieved in this case, the court finds that fee request is reasonable. See De Vivo v. 

Berryhill, No. 1:15-cv-1332-EPG, 2018 WL 4262007 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2018) (awarding fees at 

effective hourly range of $1,116.26); Jamieson v. Astrue, No. 1:09cv0490 LJO DLB, 2011 WL 

587096 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2011) (finding fee at effective hourly rate of $1,169.49 reasonable); 

Naddour v. Colvin, No.: 13-CV-1407-BAS, 2016 WL 4248557 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2016) 

(awarding fee at effective hourly rate of $1,063); Kazanjian v. Astrue, No. 09 civ. 3678 (BMC), 

///// 

1

 This amount does not account for the 2.4 hours of paralegal time. 

Case 2:16-cv-01046-EFB Document 25 Filed 04/10/20 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 

27 

28 

3 

2011 WL 2847439, at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2011) (finding that counsel “performed well, 

diligently, and with unusual efficiency,” and awarding fee at hourly rate of $2,100). 

Counsel concedes that the $15,000 award should be offset in the amount of $2,750 for 

fees previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). ECF No. 23 at 1; see 

ECF No. 22. Accordingly, counsel will be granted $12,250.00 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 

See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002) (holding that where attorney’s fees are 

awarded under both EAJA and § 406(b), the attorney must refund the smaller of the two awards 

to the plaintiff). 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 23) is granted; and 

2. Plaintiff’s counsel is awarded $12,250 in fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 

DATED: April 10, 2020. 

Case 2:16-cv-01046-EFB Document 25 Filed 04/10/20 Page 3 of 3