Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00407/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00407-1/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)

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICKY R. LIKENS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv0407-LAB (BGS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S

FEES

vs.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Brian C. Shapiro, counsel for Plaintiff Ricky R. Likens, asks the Court to order

payment of attorney’s fees in the amount of $20,016.98 from Likens's recovery of

$80,067.90 in retroactive social security benefits. Likens did not respond to this request, and

the Social Security Administration Commissioner (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”) does not

take a position. For the following reasons, the motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED.

Background

On January 20, 2011, the Commissioner denied Plaintiff’s claim for disability benefits

under the Social Security Act, prompting this appeal. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636,

Magistrate Judge Skomal issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that the case be

remanded to the Commissioner for consideration of additional evidence. The Commissioner

- 1 - 11cv0407

Case 3:11-cv-00407-LAB-BGS Document 31 Filed 12/02/14 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

did not object to the R&R, and the Court adopted it in full, ordering the case remanded. 

(Docket no. 25.)

Based on the parties’ joint stipulation, Judge Skomal awarded Plaintiff $3,950

comprising attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and

costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. (Docket no. 27.) On remand, the Commissioner granted

Plaintiff’s application, entitling him to receive $80,067.90 in retroactive benefits. (See Docket

no. 28-1, Mot. at 2.) 

Discussion

I. Caption

Plaintiff’s original complaint names Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social

Security, as Defendant. (Docket no. 1.) On February 14, 2013, Carolyn W. Colvin became

the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d),

she should be substituted as Defendant for Michael J. Astrue. Accordingly, the Court

DIRECTS the Clerk to reflect this substitution in the case caption.

II. Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Courts reviewing fee determinations in cases like this should “look[] first to the

contingent-fee agreement, then test[] it for reasonableness.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S.

789, 808 (2002). Fee agreements requiring plaintiffs to pay over 25 percent of their past due

benefits are unenforceable. Id. at 807; see also 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).

There is no definitive list of factors that weigh on whether a fee is reasonable, but

courts “must respect ‘the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee agreements’ . . . ‘looking first

to the contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for reasonableness.’” Crawford v. Astrue,

586 F.3d 1142, 1148 (quoting Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 793, 808). The Crawford court set out

factors courts should consider, based on its analysis of Gisbrecht, including “the character

of the representation and the results the representative achieved.” Id. at 1142. Courts may

also consider the degree of risk attorneys assume in accepting these cases, “including the

risk that no benefits would be awarded or that there would be a long court or administrative

delay in resolving the cases.” Id. at 1152. In addition, “[t]he court may properly reduce the

- 2 - 11cv0407

Case 3:11-cv-00407-LAB-BGS Document 31 Filed 12/02/14 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

fee for substandard performance, delay, or benefits that are not in proportion to the time

spent on the case.” Id. at 1151. In social security cases, “attorneys routinely enter into

contingent-fee agreements specifying that the fee will be 25% of any past-due benefits

recovered.” Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1147 (citing Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 803). Counsel bears

the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the requested fee. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at

807. 

On February 2, 2011, Plaintiff Likens entered a contingency fee agreement where he

would pay his counsel Shapiro 25 percent of back benefits awarded by the Social Security

Administration. (Docket no. 28-2, Representation Agreement, at 1.) Shapiro spent 24.1

hours on the case. (See Docket no. 28-1 at 7, Shapiro Decl., ¶ 5; see also Docket no. 28-5,

Ex. 4.) The results of Shapiro’s representation were positive: a remand for consideration of

additional evidence helpful to Likens, followed by an eventual decision in his favor. He

received back pay of $80,067.90 in benefits, owing in large part to the evidence Shapiro

fought to have the ALJ consider. (See Docket no. 28-3, ALJ Decision at 5 (giving “great

weight” to the opinion of Dr. Viirre in its residual functional capacity analysis, when it was

precisely the ALJ’s initial rejection of Dr. Viirre’s opinion that led the Court to remand).) 

Shapiro seeks $20,016.98 in fees, exactly 25 percent of the past-due award and therefore

within the statutory maximum. See 42 U.S.C § 406(b). 

The fee is reasonable, and the record provides no basis for a reduction in fee. Likens

was granted a substantial award of past-due benefits as a result of his counsel’s work, and

there is no evidence of substandard performance or undue delay attributable to counsel.

Shapiro submitted a timesheet detailing 24.1 hours spent working on the case. The

incremental requested fee of $16,066.98 ($20,016.98 minus the $3,950 EAJA award) would

result in an effective rate of $666.68 per hour, which is within the range of rates the Court

regularly approves of. The Court finds the amount to be proportional and reasonable for the

benefits ultimately awarded. Finally, the Court also finds that the degree of risk involved in

taking Likens's case on a contingency basis was typical and does not weigh for or against

a reduced fee award. 

- 3 - 11cv0407

Case 3:11-cv-00407-LAB-BGS Document 31 Filed 12/02/14 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

Conclusion

Shapiro’s motion for payment of attorney’s fees in the amount of $20,016.98 is

GRANTED. Furthermore, of the $20,016.98, Shapiro shall reimburse $3,950 to Likens for

the EAJA fees previously paid by the Commissioner. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 1, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 4 - 11cv0407

Case 3:11-cv-00407-LAB-BGS Document 31 Filed 12/02/14 Page 4 of 4