Marden v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:22-cv-10735
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Marden v. Commissioner, Judge Gorenstein approved $14,122.50 in Social Security fees and ordered counsel to return $4,900 previously paid under another fee law.
Joseph Marden, his children A.M.M., S.A.M., and J.J.R., and Marden’s attorneys were affected. Counsel received approval to collect $14,122.50 from withheld auxiliary benefits, while Marden was to receive a $4,900 refund of the earlier Equal Access to Justice Act fee.
What happened
In Marden v. Commissioner of Social Security, the agency initially denied Joseph Marden’s applications for disability and supplemental income benefits. After the case was sent back to the agency, the Commissioner found Marden disabled and awarded him past-due benefits, along with benefits to his children.
Marden’s counsel asked the court to approve $14,122.50 in additional fees under the Social Security Act. The court considered the results achieved, the quality and efficiency of the work, the hours spent, and whether the fee would be an excessive windfall. It found the requested amount reasonable under the parties’ contingent-fee agreement.
Judge Gorenstein granted the fee motion. He also ordered counsel to return $4,900 to Marden because counsel had previously received that amount under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The total Social Security fees awarded to counsel became $22,594.50.
The detailed version
- Marden v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:22-cv-10735
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Oct. 16, 2024
Background
The Social Security Administration initially denied Joseph Marden’s applications for Social Security Disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits. An Administrative Law Judge also denied the applications after a hearing. Marden then filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the parties agreed to send the matter back to the agency.
After the remand, the Commissioner found Marden disabled and awarded him $113,880 in past-due benefits. The Commissioner withheld 25 percent, or $28,472, for attorney fees. The court had already approved $8,472 of that amount. The agency later awarded Marden’s children, A.M.M., S.A.M., and J.J.R., a combined $56,490 in auxiliary benefits. It withheld a combined $14,122.50 from those awards for attorney fees, and the Government agreed that counsel could collect that amount because the benefits resulted from Marden’s Social Security number.
Fee request
Marden’s contingent-fee agreement allowed counsel to seek up to 25 percent of past-due benefits. Counsel requested the additional $14,122.50 under Section 206(b)(1) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). Counsel reported that four attorneys spent a combined 18.8 hours on the federal-court proceeding, and that paralegals spent an additional 5.7 hours. The Government neither supported nor opposed the request, although it agreed that counsel was entitled to collect fees from the children’s auxiliary awards.
Under Section 406(b), a court may approve a reasonable attorney fee for successful representation in federal court, subject to a limit of 25 percent of the claimant’s past-due benefits. The court evaluated whether the requested fee was disproportionate to the representation and results, whether counsel delayed the case to increase the fee, and whether the fee would be an improper windfall compared with the time spent.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the first two factors favored approval. Counsel had filed a detailed legal memorandum that obtained a remand and ultimately contributed to the agency’s favorable disability determination. The court found no evidence that counsel delayed the proceedings to increase the fee.
The court also found no improper windfall. Counsel obtained a highly favorable result, addressed the alleged errors in the Administrative Law Judge’s decision through legal research and non-boilerplate briefing, and spent a reasonable amount of time on the case. The requested fee, combined with the previously approved $8,472, produced an effective hourly rate of $1,201.84 based on the attorneys’ 18.8 hours. The court concluded that the rate and total fee did not warrant reducing the contingent-fee amount.
Disposition
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted counsel’s motion for an award of $14,122.50. The total fees awarded to date were therefore $22,594.50. The court ordered counsel to return $4,900 to Marden, representing the smaller fee previously received under the Equal Access to Justice Act when fees were awarded under both that statute and Section 406(b).
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.