Joshua A. J. v. Bisignano
- David Doty
- 0:22-cv-03012
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Joshua A. J. v. Bisignano, Magistrate Judge Micko recommended granting $2,265.23 in Social Security attorney fees under federal law.
Joshua A. J. and his attorney are affected by the recommended fee award. The Commissioner did not oppose the motion. Because this is a report and recommendation, the recommendation was not yet a final District Court order or judgment.
What happened
Joshua A. J. asked the court to approve $2,265.23 in attorney fees for work on his Social Security case. His request followed an award of $8,672.73 in past-due benefits and an earlier award of $6,407.50 in fees under a separate federal law. The Commissioner did not oppose the request.
The court reviewed the fee agreement, which provided for 25% of past-due benefits if Joshua A. J. won. It found the requested fee reasonable because the attorneys had taken the risk of working without guaranteed payment and had achieved significant results. The fee also did not exceed 25% of the past-due benefits.
In Joshua A. J. v. Bisignano, Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko recommended granting the motion and awarding counsel $2,265.23 under federal Social Security law. The recommendation was not a final order or judgment, and the parties could file written objections within the stated deadlines.
The detailed version
- Joshua A. J. v. Bisignano · No. 0:22-cv-03012
- David Doty
- June 10, 2025
Background
Joshua A. J. moved for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), which allows a court to approve a reasonable fee for representation in a Social Security case when the claimant receives a favorable judgment. He requested a net award of $2,265.23. He calculated that amount by subtracting $6,407.50 in attorney fees previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act from $8,672.73 in past-due Title XVI benefits.
The fee agreement provided that Joshua A. J.’s attorney would receive 25% of any past-due benefits awarded if he prevailed. Joshua A. J. submitted a notice of award, the fee agreement, and an appointment of his attorney as representative. The Commissioner did not oppose the motion and left the reasonableness question to the court.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that § 406(b) fees are paid from, rather than added to, the claimant’s past-due benefits and may not exceed 25% of those benefits. When both Equal Access to Justice Act fees and § 406(b) fees are awarded, the attorney must refund the smaller amount to the claimant. The court also stated that it must independently check whether the result of a contingent-fee agreement is reasonable.
The court found that the requested fee was not unreasonable. Counsel had risked providing legal services without a guarantee of payment, and the results achieved were considerable in light of the hours worked. The court also found that the fee did not exceed 25% of the total past-due benefits.
Recommended disposition
Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko recommended that Joshua A. J.’s Motion for Attorney Fees be granted and that his counsel be awarded $2,265.23 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).
The document is a report and recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court, and therefore was not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The notice stated that a party could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the report and recommendation, and that a response to objections could be filed within 14 days after service of the objections.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.