Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled June 2, 2025

Sean D. v. Saul

Judge
John Tunheim
Docket
0:19-cv-00661
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
4
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In Sean D. v. Dudek, Judge Tunheim granted counsel $24,784.25 in Social Security fees and required refund of $5,269.75 in earlier fees.

Who this affects

Sean D. receives the benefit of the disability-benefits award and must receive the $5,269.75 refund; his attorney receives $24,784.25 in court-awarded fees and must make the refund; the Commissioner is affected as the agency party but did not oppose the fee request.

What happened

In Sean D. v. Dudek, the court had previously sent Sean D.’s denied disability-benefits claim back to the Social Security Administration for further review. The Administration later found that his eligibility began July 18, 2015, and awarded $99,137 in past-due benefits.

Sean D.’s attorney requested $24,784.25 under a law allowing fees of up to 25% of past-due benefits. The Commissioner did not oppose the request. The court found the fee reasonable because counsel obtained the remand and benefits award, and the record showed no improper delay or substandard work.

Judge Tunheim granted the fee motion and awarded counsel $24,784.25. Because counsel had already received $5,269.75 under an earlier fee law, the order requires counsel to refund that smaller amount directly to Sean D.

The detailed version

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

Case
Sean D. v. Saul · No. 0:19-cv-00661
Judge
John Tunheim
Date
June 2, 2025

Background

The Commissioner of Social Security initially denied Sean D.’s claim for Social Security disability benefits. The court remanded the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration because the record needed further development regarding Sean D.’s likely absenteeism. After that remand, the court awarded $5,269.75 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

On reconsideration, the Commissioner determined that Sean D.’s eligibility for disability benefits began July 18, 2015, and awarded $99,137 in past-due benefits. The Commissioner withheld $24,784.25, representing 25% of the past-due benefits, for possible payment to Sean D.’s attorney. Sean D.’s attorney then moved for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The Commissioner did not oppose the motion.

Court’s Analysis

Section 406(b) permits a court to award a reasonable attorney’s fee for representation in court, up to 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits. When a fee is based on a contingency agreement, the court must independently review whether the amount is reasonable. Relevant considerations include whether the attorney caused delay, provided substandard representation, or requested a fee that was large compared with the time spent on the case.

The court found that Sean D. received a favorable judgment because the remand ultimately led to the reversal of the initial denial and the award of past-due benefits. It also found the requested $24,784.25 reasonable. Counsel had litigated the case for six years, obtained the remand and benefits award, and was not shown to have caused delay or performed inadequately. Although the court would have preferred detailed time records, the record showed at least 26.75 hours before the initial remand and additional work after remand, including proceedings involving administrative law judge review, an internal appeal, another administrative law judge review, and the fee motion.

Because counsel had already received the $5,269.75 Equal Access to Justice Act award, counsel must refund the smaller fee to Sean D. after receiving the § 406(b) payment.

Disposition

Judge John R. Tunheim ordered that Sean D.’s motion for attorney’s fees under § 406(b) was GRANTED. The order awarded counsel $24,784.25 and required counsel, upon receiving that award, to refund the previously awarded $5,269.75 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees directly to Sean D. The opinion also states that Leland Dudek, the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, was substituted as the defendant.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.