Amina A.M. v. Frank J. Bisignano

Background

Amina A.M. brought this Social Security case seeking judicial review of a final decision denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits. On August 14, 2023, the court sent the case back to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). After the remand, Amina A.M. was awarded benefits, including past-due benefits.

The court had previously awarded Amina A.M. $7,068.67 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. On January 26, 2026, she received notice that the Social Security Administration had withheld $9,466.75—25% of her past-due benefits—for possible payment to her representative. On February 9, 2026, counsel moved for an award of that amount under Section 206(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The Commissioner did not respond and, according to Amina A.M., took no position for or against the request.

Legal Standard

Under Section 406(b), a court may approve a reasonable attorney-fee award of up to 25% of a claimant’s past-due benefits for legal representation before the court. The fee is paid from the past-due benefits, not in addition to them. The court must independently determine whether a contingent-fee agreement is reasonable, even when the requested fee is within the 25% limit.

The court considered factors including the fee agreement, the hours counsel worked, counsel’s normal hourly rate, whether counsel caused delay, and the results of the representation. When fees are awarded under both Section 406(b) and the Equal Access to Justice Act, counsel must return the smaller fee to the claimant.

Reasonableness of the Requested Fee

Amina A.M.’s fee agreement provided for a fee equal to 25% of past-due benefits if a successful federal appeal led to an award of benefits. Counsel reported 40.9 hours of work. The requested $9,466.75 therefore represented an effective hourly rate of $231.46, while counsel reported a usual noncontingent rate of $400 per hour for similar work.

The court found the $231.46 effective hourly rate reasonable. It noted that counsel’s work resulted in benefits in a contested case rather than a stipulated remand, that there was no indication counsel caused delay, and that counsel spent a reasonable amount of time on the case. Although the record did not state the total amount of past-due benefits, no party disputed that $9,466.75 was 25% of that amount.

Order

Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright granted Amina A.M.’s motion for attorney’s fees under Section 206(b). The court authorized payment of $9,466.75 to Karl E. Osterhout from the amount withheld from Amina A.M.’s past-due benefits for court-related services. After receiving that amount, counsel must remit $7,068.67 directly to Amina A.M., representing the amount previously paid under the Equal Access to Justice Act.