Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 10, 2024

McCrorey v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Docket
1:20-cv-10493
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In McCrorey v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Lehrburger granted $5,291.68 in attorney fees, requiring counsel to refund $3,171.25 in earlier fees.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and his counsel are directly affected: counsel receives $5,291.68, and counsel must refund $3,171.25 to the plaintiff. The opinion also concerns the plaintiff’s retroactive Social Security benefits.

What happened

In McCrorey v. Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiff had obtained a court-ordered remand of a decision denying Social Security Disability benefits and later received retroactive benefits. His lawyer asked for $5,291.68 for work performed in the court case.

The court reviewed whether the requested contingency-based fee was reasonable, including the work performed, the result obtained, and whether the fee would be excessive. The requested amount was below the legal limit for court representation, and counsel had already received other fees, including $3,171.25 under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Judge Lehrburger granted the motion and awarded counsel $5,291.68. He ordered counsel to refund $3,171.25 to the plaintiff after receiving the new fee award.

The detailed version

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

Case
McCrorey v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-10493
Judge
Robert Lehrburger
Date
Sept. 10, 2024

Background

Earlier in the case, the plaintiff obtained a remand of an adverse decision denying his application for Social Security Disability benefits. After the remand, he obtained a substantial award of retroactive benefits.

The plaintiff’s counsel had previously received $10,000 for work before the Social Security Administration and $3,200 under the Equal Access to Justice Act, consisting of $3,171.25 in fees and $28.75 in expenses. Counsel then requested $5,291.68 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) for work performed in the federal court case.

Legal standard

Section 406(b) governs attorney-fee awards for representation in court. The fees may not exceed 25 percent of the claimant’s past-due benefits. That limit applies to court representation and is separate from the limit for administrative representation under Section 406(a).

The Equal Access to Justice Act provides another possible source of fees. When a Section 406(b) award exceeds the amount previously received under that Act, counsel must refund the smaller amount to the claimant. The court also must review a contingency-fee arrangement for reasonableness, considering such matters as the quality of the representation, the result obtained, possible fraud or overreaching, and whether the fee would be an improper windfall.

Court’s analysis

The court found the requested amount reasonable. It determined that the fee was below 25 percent of the plaintiff’s retroactive benefits and that the fee arrangement was not the result of fraud or overreaching and would not provide counsel with a windfall.

Counsel recorded 12.3 hours of attorney work and 7.8 hours of paralegal work. The court found those hours reasonable in light of the tasks performed. It calculated a de facto hourly rate of approximately $263.27, or effective rates of $366.80 per billed attorney hour and $100 per billed paralegal hour, and found those rates within the range approved in similar cases.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiff’s motion and awarded counsel $5,291.68 in attorney fees. After receiving the award, counsel must refund $3,171.25 to the plaintiff, representing the fees previously received under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.