Young v. Berryhill

Background

Mary Ann Young sought Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. After her application was denied and an administrative law judge found her not disabled, she appealed to the district court. The court granted Young’s motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings. On remand, an administrative law judge found Young disabled and awarded her past-due disability benefits.

Young’s attorney, Katherine Siegfried, moved for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Their retainer agreement allowed Siegfried to request up to 25% of any past-due benefits. Siegfried requested $38,673, which represented 25% of Young’s total past-due benefits award. The request included a provision requiring a refund of the $6,800 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Commissioner did not oppose the request and instead submitted an analysis in a role the Commissioner described as resembling that of a trustee for Young.

Legal standard

Section 406(b) permits an attorney who successfully represents a Social Security claimant in federal court to receive up to 25% of past-due benefits. The court must independently review a contingency-fee agreement to determine whether the resulting fee is reasonable. In doing so, the court considers the quality of the representation and the result achieved. It may reduce the fee if the representation was substandard, the attorney delayed the case, or the fee would be an improper windfall. A fee awarded under section 406(b) must be offset by any Equal Access to Justice Act fee award, with the attorney refunding the smaller award to the claimant.

Court’s analysis

The court found the requested fee reasonable. It did not exceed the statutory 25% maximum, and the hours Siegfried reported spending on the federal-court litigation appeared reasonable, even though her timesheet lacked detail. The requested fee produced an effective hourly rate of $1,117.71 based on 34.6 hours of work.

The court explained that the hourly-rate calculation did not control the analysis. Contingency-fee arrangements can produce higher effective hourly rates because they compensate attorneys for the risk of representing Social Security claimants. The court also noted that other California federal courts had approved comparable or higher section 406(b) fees, including fees requested by Siegfried.

Nothing in the record showed that Siegfried provided substandard representation. She obtained a substantial past-due-benefits award, and Young stated that she was satisfied with Siegfried’s representation and agreed to the requested fee. The court therefore concluded that the fee was not excessively large compared with the benefits achieved.

Disposition

The court granted the motion for attorney’s fees. It awarded Siegfried $38,673 and ordered her to refund Young the $6,800 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.