T.S. v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

T.S. applied for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. After an earlier appeal and remand for additional administrative proceedings, an administrative law judge issued another unfavorable decision. On the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in the present appeal, the court granted T.S.’s motion in part, remanded the case for further agency proceedings, and entered judgment.

After the remand, the Social Security Administration determined that T.S. was entitled to $172,552.10 in past-due benefits. The agency withheld $37,138.03 in case attorney fees were payable for work performed in federal court.

T.S. and attorney Young Cho had a contingency-fee agreement allowing the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing to receive up to 25% of the past-due benefits for court work. Cho sought $38,838 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), equal to 22.5% of the past-due benefits, and requested that payment be made to the law firm. He acknowledged that the firm had to refund T.S. the $5,700 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act, leaving a net fee award of $33,138. The opinion states that T.S. and the Commissioner did not respond to the motion.

Legal standard

Section 406(b) allows a court to award a reasonable fee for an attorney’s representation in a successful Social Security case, up to 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits. The court must independently review a contingency-fee agreement to ensure that it produces a reasonable result. The fee may be reduced if the representation was substandard, the attorney delayed the case to increase the fee, or the benefits were large compared with the time spent.

When both an Equal Access to Justice Act fee and a Section 406(b) fee are awarded, the attorney must refund the smaller fee to the claimant.

Court’s analysis and ruling

The court found that Cho demonstrated that the requested fee was reasonable. The fee agreement stayed within the statutory 25% limit, and the requested 22.5% was below the maximum. Cho had successfully pursued both the earlier district-court appeal and the present appeal, resulting in substantial past-due benefits dating back to 2011. The record did not show substandard performance or delay intended to increase the fee.

The court also reviewed the time records. The earlier appeal involved 3.9 hours of paralegal work and 20 hours by Cho; the present appeal involved 2.6 hours of paralegal work and 26.7 hours by Cho. The court found the time spent reasonable, particularly given the risk involved and the fact that benefits were not awarded until after a second remand.

The court granted the motion for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). It ordered the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc. to refund T.S. $5,700 in previously awarded Equal Access to Justice Act fees.