Marie K. v. Saul

Background

Kristie Marie K. sought review of an administrative decision denying disability benefits under the Social Security Act. The court previously approved the parties’ agreement to send the matter back to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. After remand, an administrative law judge found that the plaintiff was disabled from May 1, 2017, through May 19, 2021, the date of the plaintiff’s death, and entitled to past-due disability benefits. The Social Security Administration later issued a notice indicating approximately $67,907 in past-due benefits.

The plaintiff’s attorney, Denise Bourgeois Haley of the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, moved for $12,000 in attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The fee agreement allowed a request of up to 25% of past-due benefits. The requested amount was below 25% of the estimated benefits. The motion stated that Haley spent 13.1 hours litigating the case in federal court and that a paralegal spent 4.2 hours. No objections were filed.

Legal standard

Section 406(b) permits an attorney who successfully represents a Social Security claimant in federal court to receive a fee of no more than 25% of the past-due benefits awarded. The court must independently review the fee arrangement to determine whether it is reasonable. Relevant considerations include the quality of the representation and the results achieved. A court may consider the usual hourly-rate method as an aid, but that method is not the starting point or required baseline for a contingent-fee award. Any fee awarded under section 406(b) must be offset by an award under the Equal Access to Justice Act, meaning the attorney must refund the smaller fee award to the claimant or the claimant’s representative.

Court’s analysis

The court found the requested fee reasonable. The $12,000 award did not exceed the 25% statutory maximum, and the hours reported by Haley appeared reasonable. The court explained that the usual hourly-rate method should not control because it can undercompensate attorneys who assume the risk of representing Social Security claimants on a contingent-fee basis. The court also noted that California federal courts had approved comparable or larger section 406(b) awards.

The record did not suggest that Haley’s representation was below standard. She obtained a substantial past-due benefits award, and no party objected to the request. The court therefore concluded that the fee was not excessively large compared with the benefits obtained.

Disposition

Judge Donna Ryu granted the motion for attorneys’ fees and awarded $12,000. The order directed Haley to refund the plaintiff’s representative the $3,200 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.