Guttig v. Commissioner
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:23-cv-02917
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Guttig v. SSA Commissioner, Judge Hixson granted counsel $39,000 in Social Security fees and ordered a refund of earlier fees.
Michelle Christina Guttig, her attorney Francesco Benavides, and the Social Security Commissioner. The ruling approved $39,000 in fees payable from past-due benefits and required Benavides to refund Guttig the earlier $8,720.19 fee award.
What happened
Michelle Christina Guttig sued over the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of benefits. The court remanded the case, and the Commissioner later approved her application and awarded past-due benefits.
Her attorney, Francesco Benavides, requested $39,000 under a law allowing courts to approve reasonable fees from past-due Social Security benefits. The court found the request reasonable based on the fee agreement, the documented work, the result, and the risk of representing her under a contingent-fee agreement.
Judge Thomas Hixson granted the motion, directed the Commissioner to certify $39,000 in fees payable to Benavides, and ordered Benavides to refund Guttig the previously awarded $8,720.19 in government-paid fees.
The detailed version
- Guttig v. Commissioner · No. 3:23-cv-02917
- Thomas Hixson
- Dec. 10, 2025
Background
Michelle Christina Guttig brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying benefits. On October 26, 2023, the court granted the parties’ stipulation to remand the case for further proceedings. The court later approved a stipulation awarding $8,720.19 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law commonly called the EAJA.
After the remand, the Commissioner approved Guttig’s application and awarded retroactive benefits. The notice of award stated that 25% of Guttig’s past-due benefits, and her family’s past-due benefits, was being withheld for attorney’s fees, totaling $57,114.25. Guttig’s contingent-fee agreement allowed her counsel to receive up to 25% of any past-due benefits award. Her attorney, Francesco Benavides, requested $39,000 under section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Neither the government nor Guttig objected to the request.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that fees under section 406(b) are paid from a successful claimant’s past-due benefits and may not exceed 25% of those benefits. Although the court generally begins with the contingent-fee agreement, it must independently check whether the requested fee is reasonable.
The court found that Benavides met that burden. He provided a valid contingent-fee agreement and time records showing 39.6 hours of work. He stated that he had practiced Social Security law for approximately 15.5 years and that his usual hourly rate outside contingent-fee matters ranged from $350 to $550. The requested fee produced an effective hourly rate of $984.85. The court found no evidence that the representation was substandard or that the fee was disproportionate to the work. It also considered the excellent result obtained for Guttig and the substantial risk involved in contingent representation.
Because an attorney who receives fees under both section 406(b) and the EAJA must refund the smaller fee to the claimant, the court required Benavides to refund the $8,720.19 EAJA award to Guttig.
Disposition
The court granted counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees. It directed the Commissioner to certify $39,000 in section 406(b) fees payable to Francesco Benavides and ordered Benavides to refund the $8,720.19 EAJA fee award to Guttig.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.