Lieberman v. Bisignano

Background

Lisa Lieberman applied for Social Security disability benefits in March 2009, alleging disability beginning December 15, 2006, based on a herniated lumbar disc, pain, and related fatigue. The Social Security Administration denied the claim. After several administrative hearings and decisions, the agency’s Appeals Council repeatedly remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Appeals Council ultimately adopted a denial in 2016.

Lieberman then retained Christopher J. Bowes, Esq., and filed a federal action. That earlier related proceeding ended in a stipulated remand, and Bowes received $5,600 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. After another administrative denial, Lieberman filed the present federal action in 2019. In 2024, the district court remanded the case for further administrative proceedings, and Bowes received an additional $11,650 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees.

On remand, an administrative law judge found on February 13, 2025, that Lieberman was disabled as of December 15, 2006 and entitled to benefits. A March 5, 2025 Notice of Award stated that her past-due benefits totaled $492,812 and that the Social Security Administration would withhold 25 percent, or $123,203, for attorney’s fees.

Fee Request and Analysis

Bowes moved under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), which allows a court to approve a reasonable fee for an attorney’s federal-court representation in a successful Social Security case, subject to a cap of 25 percent of the claimant’s past-due benefits. He sought approval of the two contingent-fee agreements and a fee of $123,203. He acknowledged that Lieberman was entitled to credit for the $17,250 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees already paid.

Judge Krause concluded that the motion was timely because it was filed within 14 days after counsel received the Notice of Award. The requested fee did not exceed the 25-percent statutory cap, and the opinion found no evidence of fraud or overreaching in the contingent-fee agreements.

The opinion also found the fee reasonable based on the character of the representation and the result achieved, the absence of unreasonable delay caused by Bowes, and the amount of work performed. Bowes had devoted a combined 85.2 hours to the earlier related proceeding and the present action. The opinion considered his experience, the length and complexity of the administrative proceedings, the successful award of benefits, and the uncertainty inherent in contingent-fee representation. It concluded that the requested fee did not constitute an improper windfall.

Recommendation and Effect of Earlier Fees

Judge Krause recommended that Bowes be awarded $123,203 from Lieberman’s past-due benefits, in accordance with Social Security Administration policy. The recommendation rejected paying only the proposed net amount of $105,953 because counsel, rather than the Social Security Administration, must refund the smaller Equal Access to Justice Act fee to the claimant. It therefore recommended that Bowes promptly refund $17,250 to Lieberman after receiving the § 406(b) award.

This document is a report and recommendation, not the final ruling by the district judge. The parties had 14 days after service to file written objections. The opinion states that failing to object timely would waive objections and preclude appellate review.