Hernandez v. Bisignano

Background

David Hernandez applied for Social Security Disability benefits in December 2020, alleging disability beginning July 14, 2020. An Administrative Law Judge found that he was not disabled in June 2022, and the Appeals Council denied review in August 2023. Hernandez then filed this federal case.

After the Social Security Administration filed the administrative record, the parties agreed to send the case back to the agency for further proceedings. The court remanded the case and entered judgment on February 1, 2024. Hernandez’s counsel received $7,325.64 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which can provide fees when the government’s position was not substantially justified.

On remand, the Social Security Administration found Hernandez disabled beginning July 14, 2020, and awarded him $111,503.75 in past-due benefits. The agency withheld $36,132.25, approximately 25% of the past-due benefits, for attorney’s fees. Hernandez’s retainer agreement allowed counsel to receive up to 25% of past-due benefits if the federal case led to a remand followed by an award of benefits.

Fee request and positions

Hernandez’s federal-court counsel moved for $13,632 in fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), the statute governing attorney’s fees for representation in federal court in Social Security cases. The requested amount was about 9.2% of the past-due benefits and represented 31.52 hours of work. Counsel explained that administrative counsel separately intended to request $22,500 for work before the Social Security Administration, so the combined requested fees would equal 25% of the past-due benefits.

The Commissioner stated that he neither supported nor opposed the fee request. He asked only that Hernandez’s counsel be required to reimburse Hernandez for the $7,325.64 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Court’s analysis

The court found the application timely. Fee requests under Section 406(b) ordinarily must be filed within 14 days after judgment, but that period may be extended when counsel must wait for the agency to calculate benefits after a remand. In that situation, the period begins when the claimant receives the agency’s Notice of Award. Counsel filed the request four days after the May 18, 2025 Notice of Award.

The court also found the requested fee reasonable. The request was below the 25% statutory limit, and the court found no evidence of fraud or overreaching. The court rejected treating the fee as an improper windfall. Counsel requested $13,632 for 31.52 hours, an effective hourly rate of $432.49. The court considered counsel’s experience, the successful result, the absence of evidence that Hernandez was dissatisfied, and the uncertainty of obtaining benefits given the earlier denial and denial of administrative review.

The court further found that the fee matched the nature and results of the representation, that counsel had not caused unreasonable delay, and that counsel had resolved the case efficiently through the agreed remand without motion practice. The court considered the requested 9.2% share proportionate to the limited time spent and the substantial benefits obtained.

Disposition

Judge Victoria Reznik granted the motion for attorney’s fees. The court awarded Hernandez’s counsel $13,632, to be paid from Hernandez’s past-due benefits. Upon receiving that award, counsel was ordered to promptly refund $7,325.64 to Hernandez, representing the Equal Access to Justice Act fees counsel had previously received. The court also asked the Clerk of Court to close the matter associated with the fee motion.