Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 25, 2021

Winston v. Saul

Judge
Susan Van Keulen
Docket
5:19-cv-03306
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
4
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In Winston v. Saul, Judge Van Keulen granted counsel’s fee petition for $24,083.90 and ordered a $6,231.70 Equal Access to Justice Act refund.

Who this affects

Carolynne A. Winston and her lawyer, Katherine Siegfried; the order awarded Siegfried $24,083.90 from Winston’s past-due benefits and required a $6,231.70 refund to Winston.

What happened

Winston v. Saul began as Carolynne A. Winston’s challenge to the denial of her disability-benefits claim. The court sent the case back for further proceedings, and Winston later received about $95,000 in past-due benefits plus other benefits.

Winston’s lawyer requested $24,083.90 under the Social Security Act and their fee agreement, which allowed a fee of up to 25% of past-due benefits. The court found the request reasonable because the lawyer obtained a favorable result efficiently, did not improperly delay the case, and requested an hourly amount that was within amounts awarded in similar cases.

Judge Susan Van Keulen granted the fee request for $24,083.90 and ordered the lawyer to refund Winston $6,231.70 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The detailed version

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

Case
Winston v. Saul · No. 5:19-cv-03306
Judge
Susan Van Keulen
Date
Jan. 25, 2021

Background

Carolynne A. Winston appealed the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of her disability-benefits claim. After Winston filed a motion for summary judgment, the parties stipulated to a remand for further proceedings, and the court entered judgment based on that stipulation. The court later awarded Winston $6,321.70 in attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

After the remand proceedings, Winston received approximately $95,000 in past-due benefits, along with other benefits. Her lawyer, Katherine Siegfried, represented her in the federal-court case and in the administrative proceedings after remand. Siegfried petitioned for $24,083.90 in attorney’s fees under Section 406(b) of the Social Security Act and the parties’ contingent-fee agreement. The agreement allowed a fee of up to 25% of past-due benefits if the case was successful. The Social Security Administration withheld $24,083.90, which represented 25% of Winston’s past-due benefits.

The government took no position on the fee petition. Siegfried submitted records showing 30.6 hours of work connected with the district-court proceedings and stated that she spent an additional 13.6 hours on the administrative proceedings. She also stated that, if the court awarded Section 406(b) fees, she would reimburse Winston for the EAJA award.

Legal standard and analysis

Section 406(b) permits a court to award a reasonable fee for an attorney’s representation in a Social Security case, up to 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits. The fee is paid from the claimant’s past-due benefits rather than by the government. A court may award the fee even when the past-due benefits result from administrative proceedings after a court-ordered remand.

The court found the requested $24,083.90 reasonable. Nothing in the record indicated that Siegfried’s performance was inadequate or that she delayed the proceedings to increase her fee. The court noted that, after Siegfried filed the summary-judgment motion, she obtained the Commissioner’s agreement to remand, and Winston then received past-due and ongoing benefits. The award for 44.2 hours of work produced an effective hourly rate of approximately $545, which the court found reasonable in light of comparable Section 406(b) awards.

Order

The court granted counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees in the amount of $24,083.90. It also ordered counsel to refund Winston $6,231.70 previously awarded as EAJA fees. The conclusion refers to the motion as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 405(b), although the petition and the court’s analysis identify Section 406(b) as the governing provision.

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.