UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICIA VANNER,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-CV-12082 

v. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES (#41)

Plaintiff filed this case seeking review of the decision denying her application for

social security disability benefits. This court denied the Commissioner’s motion for

summary judgment and remanded the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. 

Plaintiff subsequently prevailed. The preliminary Notice of Award shows that the ALJ

awarded her $116,610.40 in past-due benefits. Plaintiff’s counsel filed an application for

attorneys’ fees seeking $29,152.60 (25% of the award) pursuant to § 206(b)(1) of the

Social Security Act. Plaintiff’s counsel subsequently filed the final Notice of Award with this

court. The final Notice of Award shows that the ALJ awarded plaintiff $122,610.40 in pastdue benefits and shows that 25% of that amount would result in $30,652.60 for attorney’s

fees. However, plaintiff’s counsel continues to seek only the $29,152.60 initially requested. 

Plaintiff argues this amount is reasonable because of the contingent nature of

representation, the express contract between plaintiff and her attorney, and the absence

of any reason why the attorney fee award would be unjust. Plaintiff’s counsel represents

-1-

2:09-cv-12082-GCS-VMM Doc # 47 Filed 03/14/13 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 812
that it will return the EAJA fee of $8,130.50 to plaintiff when it receives the $29,152.60.

Section 206(b)(1) of the Act provides that, whenever a court renders a judgment

favorable to a claimant who was represented before it, the court may allow “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...” 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). In Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535

U.S. 789, 808 (2002), the Supreme Court noted that “§ 406(b) does not displace

contingent-fee agreements as the primary means by which fees are set for successfully

representing Social Security benefits claimants in court.” The Supreme Court explained

§ 406 instead provides for a review of the attorney’s fees to ensure they are reasonable. 

Id. The decision whether to award attorney’s fees under Section 206(b)(1) is committed

to the sound discretion of the district court, and the decision awarding or denying fees is

reviewed on appeal under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. See Damron v.

Commissioner, 104 F.3d 853, 856 (6th Cir. 1997).

Defendant argues a fee award of $29,152.60 is unreasonable and would result in

a windfall to plaintiff’s attorney in light of the time and effort expended by the lawyer. This

court is familiar with this case and with the work performed by plaintiff’s counsel. After

reviewing the parties’ submissions and decisions in similar cases, the court finds the fee

requested is reasonable. Accordingly, plaintiff’s application for attorneys’ fees (#41) is

GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2013

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

2:09-cv-12082-GCS-VMM Doc # 47 Filed 03/14/13 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 813
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record by

electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

-3-

2:09-cv-12082-GCS-VMM Doc # 47 Filed 03/14/13 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 814