William H. v. Colvin
- Donna Ryu
- 4:16-cv-07383
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Erik William H. v. Colvin, Judge Ryu granted counsel’s fee motion, awarding $44,752.75 less an administrative assessment and requiring a $19,000 refund.
Erik William H. and his attorney, Josephine M. Gerrard, were affected. The order approved the attorney’s fee request and required the attorney to refund Erik William H. $19,000 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
What happened
In Erik William H. v. Colvin, Erik William H. challenged the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits. The district court initially ruled against him, but the Ninth Circuit reversed the administrative law judge’s decision and sent the case back with instructions to award benefits.
After the agency indicated that Erik William H. would receive about $179,011 in past-due benefits, his lawyer, Josephine M. Gerrard, requested $44,753 in court-awarded fees under the Social Security Act. The court evaluated the fee agreement, the work performed, the result achieved, and the statutory limit of 25 percent of past-due benefits.
Judge Ryu granted the motion and awarded $44,752.75 in fees, less any required administrative assessment. The order also required Gerrard to refund Erik William H. the $19,000 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
The detailed version
- William H. v. Colvin · No. 4:16-cv-07383
- Donna Ryu
- Oct. 16, 2023
Background
Erik William H. applied for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, alleging that he became disabled on December 29, 2010. An administrative law judge found that he was not disabled. After the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council declined review, Erik William H. appealed to the district court.
On March 19, 2018, the district court denied Erik William H.’s request for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The Ninth Circuit later reversed the administrative law judge’s decision and remanded the matter with instructions to award benefits. The Social Security Administration then issued a notice stating that it would award approximately $179,011 in past-due disability benefits.
Fee request and legal standard
Erik William H.’s lawyer, Josephine M. Gerrard, moved for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The fee agreement allowed counsel to request up to 25 percent of the past-due benefits. Gerrard requested $44,753, although the court and the Commissioner identified the exact 25-percent amount as $44,752.75.
Section 406(b) allows a court to award fees to an attorney who successfully represented a Social Security claimant in federal court, subject to the 25-percent limit. The court must independently review the requested fee for reasonableness, considering the quality of the representation and the result achieved. Fees awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act must be offset, meaning the attorney must refund the claimant the smaller fee award.
Court’s analysis
Gerrard reported spending 178.40 hours litigating the case in federal court. The requested $44,752.75 award would produce an effective hourly rate of $250.86. The court found that the fee did not exceed the statutory maximum and that the hours appeared reasonable.
The court explained that the usual lodestar calculation—hours multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate—does not control these contingency-fee awards. The court also noted that the requested effective hourly rate was lower than rates approved in other California district court cases. Nothing in the record suggested that Gerrard provided substandard representation, and she had achieved a substantial past-due-benefits award. No party objected to the request.
Disposition
Judge Donna M. Ryu granted the motion for attorney’s fees. The court awarded $44,752.75, less any administrative assessment under 42 U.S.C. § 406(d). Gerrard must refund Erik William H. the $19,000 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The order stated that the Commissioner could make any payment of withheld past-due benefits to the attorney’s address registered with the Social Security Administration.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.