T.O. v. Nancy A . Berryhill
- Joseph Spero
- 3:18-cv-04313
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In T.O. v. Saul, Chief Magistrate Judge Spero granted counsel’s fee motion in part, awarding $17,141.33 after finding the requested fee unreasonable.
T.O. receives the remaining withheld past-due benefits and receives a refund of the earlier EAJA fee award; attorney Harvey Sackett receives $17,141.33, rather than the $22,000 requested; the Commissioner of Social Security must make those payments.
What happened
In T.O. v. Andrew Saul, T.O. won a disability-benefits case and the court sent it back for further administrative proceedings. On remand, the Social Security Commissioner found T.O. disabled and awarded $102,848 in past-due benefits.
T.O.’s lawyer, Harvey Sackett, asked for $22,000 in fees under federal law and their fee agreement. The court found that delays and unprofessional conduct by counsel increased the past-due benefits, while also recognizing that counsel achieved a successful result. The court therefore found the requested fee unreasonable.
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granted the fee motion in part and ordered payment of $17,141.33 to Sackett. The Commissioner was ordered to send the remaining withheld benefits to T.O., and Sackett was ordered to refund T.O.’s earlier fee award under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
The detailed version
- T.O. v. Nancy A . Berryhill · No. 3:18-cv-04313
- Joseph Spero
- Mar. 2, 2022
Background
T.O. prevailed on summary judgment in a Social Security disability-benefits case. The court remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings. On remand, the Commissioner found T.O. disabled and awarded $102,848.00 in past-due benefits.
The court had previously approved a stipulated award of $4,775.66 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). T.O. had signed an agreement providing that his attorney could receive no more than 25% of his past-due benefits if he prevailed in court. Attorney Harvey Sackett then sought $22,000 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and the fee agreement. Sackett agreed to refund the earlier EAJA award to T.O.
Legal standard
Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), a court may approve a reasonable attorney-fee award of no more than 25% of the past-due benefits resulting from a favorable judgment. The court must review the requested fee for reasonableness, considering factors such as the quality of the representation, the result obtained, attorney-caused delay, and whether the benefits are large compared with the time spent on the case. The court must also respect lawful fee agreements while preventing an unreasonable windfall.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the case involved delays and contentious filings, largely caused by Sackett’s failure to follow basic procedures for requesting extensions and his unjustified hostility toward defense counsel. The court said this conduct fell below its expected standard of professionalism and caused additional past-due benefits to accrue during the litigation. That conduct warranted reducing the fee below the statutory maximum.
The court also found that the quality of Sackett’s summary-judgment motion was adequate and that he ultimately obtained a successful result for T.O. The requested $22,000 was below the 25% maximum of $25,712, but the Commissioner calculated that it represented an hourly rate of $993.23, and Sackett did not dispute that calculation. The court found that amount and hourly rate unreasonable under the circumstances.
Disposition
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granted Sackett’s motion in part. The Commissioner was ordered to pay $17,141.33 in fees to Sackett, representing two-thirds of the statutory maximum. The Commissioner was also ordered to remit the remaining withheld past-due benefits to T.O. Sackett was ordered to refund the earlier EAJA fee award to T.O.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.