Rivera v. Saul

Background

Arlene Rivera applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits, but an administrative law judge denied her claim, and the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council later denied her appeal. Rivera retained Richard B. Seelig to represent her in federal court under a fee agreement providing for a contingency fee of 25 percent of any past-due disability benefits awarded.

The parties agreed that the case should be sent back to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings, and the court entered that remand order. Rivera later received a favorable benefits decision. The Social Security Administration issued a notice stating that Rivera’s past-due benefits totaled $125,510.80 and that $28,158 had been withheld for attorney’s fees. The remaining withheld balance later reported to Seelig was $14,070.50.

Seelig sought $8,100 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), which allows a court to award a reasonable fee for an attorney’s work in federal court, subject to a 25-percent limit on the claimant’s past-due benefits. Seelig had also received $1,400 under the Equal Access to Justice Act for the same federal-court work.

Timeliness

The court held that the fee request was timely. Seelig filed the original motion 10 days after the presumed receipt of the benefits notice, within the usual 14-day period. The court had previously allowed an amended motion after the Social Security Administration decided the separate fee request for work before the agency. Because Seelig did not receive that decision directly and filed the amended motion within 14 days after receiving a letter showing the remaining withheld benefits, the court enlarged the filing period and deemed the motion timely.

Reasonableness of the Fee

The court began with Rivera’s contingency-fee agreement and independently reviewed whether the requested amount was reasonable. The $8,100 request was approximately seven percent of the past-due benefits, well below the 25-percent cap, and the court found no evidence of fraud or overreaching.

The court also found that the fee was proportionate to the representation and result. Seelig reviewed the administrative record, prepared and filed the federal complaint, and helped secure the remand that ultimately led to the benefits award. Although he spent only 8.1 hours on the case, the court concluded that the fee was not an improper windfall because of the successful result, Seelig’s Social Security experience, the efficiency of his work, and the uncertainty of obtaining benefits after Rivera’s claim had been denied at two administrative levels.

Prior EAJA Fee

Because Seelig received $1,400 under the Equal Access to Justice Act for the same federal-court work, the court stated that he must refund that smaller fee to Rivera after receiving the § 406(b) award. Seelig had agreed to make that refund.

Disposition

Judge Cathy Seibel granted Rivera’s motion and awarded counsel $8,100, to be paid out of Rivera’s past-due benefits. The court directed counsel to promptly refund Rivera $1,400 and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion.