Ochea v. Saul
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:20-cv-02985-TSH
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Ochea v. Kijakazi, Judge Hixson granted counsel $18,823 in Social Security fees and ordered a $5,500 refund to Ochea.
Ochea’s attorney, Katherine R. Siegfried, receives the $18,823 § 406(b) fee, while Ochea receives a refund of the $5,500 Equal Access to Justice Act fee from counsel; the fees are connected to Ochea’s past-due Social Security benefits.
What happened
In Ochea v. Kijakazi, Ochea challenged the denial of Social Security benefits, and the court previously sent the case back for further proceedings after granting her summary judgment motion. The Commissioner later awarded her $75,293.50 in past-due benefits.
Ochea’s attorney, Katherine R. Siegfried, requested $18,823 under the Social Security Act. The court found the request reasonable because it matched the 25% contingency-fee agreement, counsel achieved a favorable result, and the effective hourly rate reflected the risk of contingent representation.
Judge Hixson granted the fee motion, directed the Commissioner to certify $18,823 payable to Siegfried, and ordered Siegfried to refund Ochea the $5,500 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
The detailed version
- Ochea v. Saul · No. 3:20-cv-02985-TSH
- Thomas Hixson
- Mar. 7, 2022
Background
Roditha Ochea brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of benefits. On April 19, 2021, the court granted Ochea’s summary judgment motion and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Commissioner later granted Ochea’s application and awarded $75,293.50 in retroactive benefits.
Ochea’s attorney, Katherine R. Siegfried, moved for $18,823 in attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The parties had previously obtained a $5,500 attorney-fee award under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The government did not object to the requested § 406(b) award, subject to an offset for the Equal Access to Justice Act fees.
Legal standard
Under § 406(b), a federal court may award an attorney a reasonable fee for representing a successful Social Security claimant, up to 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits. The court must independently review the requested fee for reasonableness, considering the contingency-fee agreement, the quality of the representation, the result achieved, and whether the fee is disproportionate to the time spent or affected by delay or substandard performance.
When fees are awarded under both § 406(b) and the Equal Access to Justice Act, the attorney must refund the claimant the smaller fee, up to the point at which the claimant receives all of the past-due benefits.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Siegfried had shown the requested fee was reasonable. Ochea’s contingency-fee agreement provided for a 25% fee, which was within the statutory limit. The court found no evidence of substandard performance and noted that Siegfried’s representation resulted in Ochea receiving $75,293.50 in past-due benefits.
Siegfried stated that she spent 27.2 hours on the case. The requested fee produced an effective hourly rate of $692, which was higher than her stated non-contingency rate of $500 per hour for appellate cases unrelated to Social Security. The court nevertheless concluded that the fee was reasonable because contingent representation involves a substantial risk of loss and the effective rate reflected that risk.
Disposition
The court GRANTED counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees. It directed the Commissioner to certify $18,823.00 in fees under § 406(b), payable to Katherine Siegfried. It also ORDERED Siegfried to refund the $5,500 Equal Access to Justice Act fee award to Ochea.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.