Lisa D. Graham v. Kijakazi

Background

Lisa D. Graham applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits and was denied at the initial and reconsideration stages. An administrative law judge later issued an unfavorable decision, and the appeals council affirmed it. Graham appealed to the district court. In December 2020, the parties agreed to send the case back for further administrative proceedings. After remand, an administrative law judge issued a partially favorable decision in June 2022 and awarded Graham $81,957 in retroactive past-due benefits.

Attorney Harvey P. Sackett represented Graham during the administrative and court proceedings. The Commissioner awarded Sackett $6,000 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(a) for the administrative work. Sackett then moved under § 406(b), which governs fees for successful representation in court, for an additional award of $18,989.25. The requested amount accounted for a previously approved $3,639.12 payment under the Equal Access to Justice Act and amounts Graham had already provided to Sackett.

Analysis

The court first determined that Sackett could receive a § 406(b) fee even though the district-court case had been remanded rather than directly producing the benefits award. The court explained that Ninth Circuit law allows fees for substantial work performed before the court when the claimant later receives past-due benefits.

The requested $18,989.25 was less than 25 percent of Graham’s past-due benefits. Twenty-five percent of $81,957 is $20,489.25. But Graham’s contingent-fee agreement stated that her total fee for administrative and court representation could not exceed 25 percent of her past-due benefits. Because the $6,000 administrative fee and the requested $18,989.25 court fee together exceeded $20,489.25, the requested court fee would violate the agreement.

The court noted that the statute itself does not impose a 25-percent cap on the combined administrative and court fees. It nevertheless held that the agreement could impose that additional limit. The resulting maximum court fee was $14,489.25: $20,489.25, the total 25-percent cap, minus the $6,000 already awarded under § 406(a).

The court also found the adjusted fee reasonable. It found that Sackett provided adequate representation, did not cause undue delay, and spent roughly 17 hours representing Graham in district court. The court also considered the risk of losing the case and the fact that the fee would be reduced by the Equal Access to Justice Act payment.

Disposition

The court stated that the motion for attorney’s fees was "GRANTED" to the extent described in the order. It awarded plaintiff’s counsel $14,489.25 under § 406(b), subject to the $3,639.12 Equal Access to Justice Act credit, resulting in a net fee award of $10,850.13.