Lewis v. Kijakazi

Background

Plaintiff Gerald L. filed this Social Security disability action on June 11, 2020. On September 26, 2022, the court remanded (sent back) the matter to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the findings of Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung (ret.). On December 6, 2022, the court approved a stipulation awarding attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $8,800. On remand, an Administrative Law Judge issued a favorable decision awarding the plaintiff $86,545 in past-due benefits.

The Motion

On August 11, 2025, plaintiff's counsel, Meredith E. Marcus, filed a motion for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1), seeking $21,636.25 — equal to 25% of the $86,545 in past-due benefits awarded. The Commissioner took no position on the merits of the fee request, but argued it was the court's responsibility to assess reasonableness, and separately requested that the court specify that any fee be paid from withheld past-due benefits.

Legal Framework

Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), a court may award a "reasonable fee" to counsel for a successful Social Security claimant for work before the court, capped at 25% of the total past-due benefits awarded. The 25% figure is a ceiling, not an automatic entitlement. Per the Supreme Court's decision in Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002), the court has an independent obligation to determine whether the requested fee is reasonable, and counsel must show the fee is reasonable for the services rendered.

Court's Analysis

Successful Representation

The court first confirmed that § 406(b)(1)(A) requires a judgment favorable to the claimant. It found that representation was successful because it resulted in an $86,545 past-due benefits award.

Reasonableness of the Fee

The court assessed several factors drawn from Gisbrecht:

- Contingency fee agreement: The plaintiff signed an agreement allowing counsel 25% of any past-due benefits awarded, which is consistent with the statutory cap and, per the Supreme Court, is the most common fee arrangement in Social Security cases. - No delay or substandard work: The court found no evidence that counsel caused unnecessary delay or provided substandard representation. - Hours and effective rate: Counsel spent a combined 50.35 hours on the case. The requested fee of $21,636.25 produces an effective hourly rate of $429.72 — a rate the court found to be below other approved rates in the District of Minnesota, citing a case that approved an effective rate of $900 per hour. - Reasonableness of hours: The court found the number of hours reported was not excessive given the briefing opposing a motion to dismiss, merits briefing, and the lengthy administrative record.

The court concluded that a fee of $21,636.25 is reasonable.

EAJA Offset Requirement

Because counsel received $8,800 under EAJA for the same work, and because an attorney may not retain fee awards under both EAJA and § 406(b) for the same services, the court ordered Ms. Marcus to refund the plaintiff the $8,800 EAJA fee — the smaller of the two awards — as required by Gisbrecht. The court explained that, unlike § 406(b) fees which come from the claimant's own recovery, EAJA fees are paid from agency funds as a penalty to the Commissioner.

Commissioner's Request for Qualification

The Commissioner asked the court to specify that the § 406(b) fee be paid from withheld past-due benefits, and that if those funds are insufficient, counsel must seek the shortfall from the plaintiff personally. The court declined to include this qualification, finding that the Commissioner made no showing that the withheld funds are insufficient to cover the fee awarded.

Disposition