Valencia v. Kijakazi
- Alex Tse
- 3:22-cv-06084
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Valencia v. Bisignano, Judge Tse granted in part counsel’s fee request, approving $47,937.31 subject to a $9,918.46 refund.
Iris M Valencia and her attorney are affected. Counsel may receive $47,937.31 from Valencia’s past-due benefits but must refund Valencia $9,918.46 previously paid under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
What happened
In Valencia v. Bisignano, the court considered Valencia’s attorney’s request for 25% of her past-due Social Security benefits after the court sent her case back to the agency and an administrative law judge awarded benefits. The agency calculated the past-due benefits at $191,749.25, while counsel calculated them at $287,603.00.
Because Valencia’s request to have the agency reconsider its calculation was still pending, the court used the agency’s $191,749.25 figure. Twenty-five percent was $47,937.31. The court found that amount reasonable because it matched the contingent-fee agreement, counsel obtained a favorable result, and there was no indication of poor or delayed representation. The Commissioner did not oppose the request, and Valencia did not respond.
Judge Tse ruled that the motion for attorneys’ fees was granted in part. Counsel may recover $47,937.31 from Valencia’s past-due benefits, but must refund Valencia the $9,918.46 previously paid under the Equal Access to Justice Act. If the agency later increases the past-due-benefits amount to $287,603.00, counsel may file an amended fee motion.
The detailed version
- Valencia v. Kijakazi · No. 3:22-cv-06084
- Alex Tse
- July 25, 2025
Background
The court had previously sent Valencia’s Social Security case back to the Social Security agency. After that remand, an administrative law judge granted Valencia’s application for benefits. Valencia’s attorney then sought approval under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) to receive 25% of Valencia’s past-due benefits as a fee for work performed in the district court.
Section 406(b) allows a court to approve a reasonable attorney’s fee of up to 25% of a claimant’s past-due benefits. The amount of benefits was disputed. Counsel stated that the past-due benefits totaled $287,603.00, but the agency’s notice of award stated that they totaled $191,749.25. Valencia’s request for the agency to reconsider its calculation was still pending.
Court’s Analysis
The court used the agency’s $191,749.25 calculation for the present motion. Twenty-five percent of that amount is $47,937.31.
The court found that $47,937.31 was reasonable for several reasons. The fee matched Valencia’s contingent-fee agreement, which provided for 25% of backpay awarded after reversal of an unfavorable administrative law judge decision. There was no indication that counsel provided substandard representation or delayed the case to increase the fee. Counsel obtained a substantial benefits award. The Commissioner did not support or oppose the request, and Valencia did not file a response after receiving notice of the motion.
The court also considered counsel’s 64.05 hours of work on the district court proceedings. The requested fee produced an effective hourly rate of $748.44. The court noted that other courts in the circuit had approved even higher effective hourly rates in similar fee awards and that contingent fees compensate attorneys for the risk of representing Social Security disability claimants.
Ruling
Judge Tse concluded that $47,937.31 was a reasonable fee and ruled that the motion for attorneys’ fees was granted in part. Counsel may recover that amount from Valencia’s past-due benefits. Counsel must refund Valencia the $9,918.46 in fees previously paid by the United States under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal statute that permits fee awards in some cases against the government.
The court did not resolve the agency’s competing calculation of past-due benefits. If the agency grants Valencia’s reconsideration request and determines that the benefits totaled $287,603.00, counsel may file an amended motion for attorneys’ fees, which the court will then evaluate.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.