Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 28, 2020

Kane v. Berryhill

Judge
Kandis Westmore
Docket
4:18-cv-02114
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In Kane v. Berryhill, Judge Westmore granted counsel’s fee motion, awarding $6,094.92 after subtracting an earlier $5,500 payment.

Who this affects

Michael Scott Kane and his counsel, John Metsker, received approval of a $6,094.92 net attorney’s-fee award; the earlier $5,500 Equal Access to Justice Act payment was deducted.

What happened

Michael Scott Kane won a Social Security case after the court sent it back for an immediate award of benefits. He received $46,379.68 in past-due benefits, and his lawyer, John Metsker, asked for 25 percent of that amount as payment for work in court.

The Commissioner did not take a position on whether the requested fee was reasonable. The court reviewed the fee agreement, the result obtained, the time spent, and whether the requested amount was excessive or affected by delay or poor work.

Judge Kandis A. Westmore granted the motion and approved $11,594.92 in fees, but deducted the $5,500 previously paid under the Equal Access to Justice Act, leaving $6,094.92.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Kane v. Berryhill · No. 4:18-cv-02114
Judge
Kandis Westmore
Date
Feb. 28, 2020

Background

Michael Scott Kane brought an action seeking review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security. The court had previously granted Kane’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for an immediate award of benefits. The Commissioner then granted Kane’s application, resulting in $46,379.68 in retroactive benefits.

Kane’s counsel, John Metsker, filed a motion under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(d)(2)(B) for attorney’s fees. The contingent-fee agreement allowed counsel to seek 25 percent of past-due benefits for work performed before the courts. Twenty-five percent of $46,379.68 was $11,594.92.

The parties had also stipulated to $5,500 in fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and counsel had received that amount. The Commissioner filed a response taking no position on whether the requested fee was reasonable.

Court’s analysis

The court examined the contingent-fee agreement and then considered whether the requested amount was reasonable. It found that counsel achieved a good result by obtaining a remand for immediate payment of benefits. The court also found no undue delay or substandard performance requiring a reduction. The case was resolved in less than a year, and the requested amount was within the statutory 25-percent limit and not disproportionate to the 28.3 hours counsel spent on the case.

The court also explained that the fee awarded under the Social Security statute had to be reduced by the $5,500 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act. This offset prevented counsel from receiving a double recovery.

Ruling

Judge Kandis A. Westmore granted the motion. The court awarded $11,594.92 in fees, less the $5,500 Equal Access to Justice Act payment, for a total award of $6,094.92.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.