Wilson M. v. Kijakazi

Background

Wilson M. brought this action seeking judicial review of the denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits. The court remanded the case to the Social Security Administration, which reversed its earlier denial and awarded Wilson M. $111,553.52 in past-due benefits. The court also awarded Wilson M. $6,472.16 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Under a 25-percent contingency-fee agreement and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1), Counsel sought fees for representing Wilson M. in court. The court previously awarded Counsel $27,888.38 and ordered Counsel to refund Wilson M. the Equal Access to Justice Act fees. Wilson M. then filed a motion opposing the award and asked the court to deny or reduce it. Counsel opposed the motion and requested the full fee.

Motion and standard of review

Because the court had already entered an order awarding fees, Wilson M.’s motion appeared to seek reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). That rule generally requires an exceptional showing, and the District of Minnesota’s local rules require permission before filing a reconsideration motion. The court did not decide which standard applied. Instead, it reconsidered the original fee request together with Wilson M.’s arguments and concluded that the full award was reasonable.

Reasonableness of the fee

Section 406(b)(1)(A) permits a court to award a successful Social Security claimant’s lawyer a reasonable fee of no more than 25 percent of the claimant’s past-due benefits. The court must independently review a contingency-fee agreement and assess the award based on the quality of the representation and the results achieved. A court may reduce an award if the representation was inadequate, the lawyer delayed the case, or the benefits were large compared with the time spent.

Wilson M. did not argue that Counsel exceeded the 25-percent statutory limit, that the agreement did not permit a 25-percent fee, that Counsel’s work was inadequate, that the result was unsuccessful, or that Counsel delayed the proceedings. He argued instead that the $741.71 effective hourly rate was unreasonable compared with rates in other cases, that the case had a high likelihood of success, and that he was harmed by the loss of the time value of money during the delay in receiving benefits.

The court found that the rate was within the range considered reasonable in the District of Minnesota. Although it exceeded some rates, it was lower than rates approved in several other cases. The court also distinguished a case in which a much higher requested rate was reduced. The court found the fee reasonable in light of the more-than-2,500-page record, Counsel’s documented work developing the record and examining expert testimony, the risks associated with the case, and Counsel’s waiver of compensation for administrative proceedings.

The court rejected the argument that the case’s success showed that it had been easy or highly likely to succeed from the beginning. The court also found no evidence that Counsel caused the more-than-six-year delay in receiving benefits. It stated that any legislative response to the effect of delayed payment on claimants, rather than a reduction of otherwise reasonable attorney fees, was a matter for legislation.

Disposition

The court found the fee award reasonable after considering the contingency-fee agreement, the time and effort spent, the length of the record, comparable Social Security fee awards in the district, and the requirements of Section 406(b). It therefore denied Wilson M.’s motion and awarded Counsel the entire $27,888.38 requested, contingent on Counsel refunding Wilson M. the $6,472.16 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees. The order states: “Plaintiff’s Motion [Docket No. 42] is DENIED.”