Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled July 12, 2024

Kim J. H. v. Saul

Judge
Michael Davis
Docket
0:18-cv-02736
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
7
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In Kim J. H. v. Saul, Judge Davis granted counsel $23,219.25 in Social Security fees and ordered a $10,710 EAJA refund to Kim J. H.

Who this affects

Kim J. H. and her attorney, David F. Chermol. The order authorizes $23,219.25 in fees for counsel and requires counsel to refund $10,710 in previously paid EAJA fees directly to Kim J. H.

What happened

In Kim J. H. v. Saul, the court considered the plaintiff’s lawyer’s request for fees after the plaintiff received $92,877 in past-due disability benefits following a court-ordered remand.

The court found that $23,219.25—25% of the past-due benefits—was reasonable under the law governing fees for court work in Social Security cases. It granted the motion and authorized payment of that amount from the benefits withheld for attorney’s fees.

Judge Davis ordered the lawyer to pay $10,710 directly to Kim J. H. because that amount had previously been paid under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Kim J. H. v. Saul · No. 0:18-cv-02736
Judge
Michael Davis
Date
July 12, 2024

Background

Kim J. H. applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits in January 2015, alleging disability beginning May 13, 2014. The application was denied initially and on reconsideration. After a November 9, 2017 hearing, an administrative law judge denied the claim, and the Appeals Council declined review.

Kim J. H. then sought review in federal court. In February 2020, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part and remanded the case to the Social Security Commissioner for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). In October 2020, the court awarded $10,710 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, or EAJA.

On remand, the administrative law judge issued a favorable decision and awarded Kim J. H. $92,877 in past-due benefits. Counsel David F. Chermol then sought $23,219.25 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1), which permits a court to award a successful Social Security claimant’s lawyer a reasonable fee for work performed before the court, up to 25% of past-due benefits.

Reasonableness of the Fee

The court found that the representation was ultimately successful because it resulted in the award of past-due benefits. It also found the requested fee reasonable. The plaintiff had agreed to pay counsel 25% of any past-due benefits, matching the statutory maximum. The court found no indication that counsel caused delay or provided inadequate representation, and it found that the requested amount was not excessive compared with the time spent on the case.

Counsel sought payment for 52.5 of the 57.8 hours recorded for the case. The court noted that the requested fee produced an effective hourly rate of $204 when compared with the previously awarded EAJA amount, which was below effective rates approved in similar cases in the district.

EAJA Refund and Disposition

The court explained that a lawyer may receive awards under both EAJA and Section 406(b) for the same work, but must return the smaller award to the claimant. Because the $10,710 EAJA award was smaller than the Section 406(b) award, counsel was required to refund $10,710 directly to Kim J. H.

Judge Michael J. Davis granted the motion for attorney’s fees. The court authorized payment of $23,219.25 to David F. Chermol from the amount withheld from Kim J. H.’s past-due benefits for court-related services, and ordered counsel, upon receiving that sum, to remit $10,710 directly to Kim J. H.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.