Poire v. Saul

Background

Elizabeth Jane Poire applied for disability insurance benefits, disabled widow’s benefits, and supplemental security income benefits. An administrative law judge denied her application, and the Social Security Appeals Council declined further review. Poire then sought judicial review in the District of Minnesota.

After Poire filed a motion for summary judgment, the parties agreed that the case should be sent back to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. The court ordered that remand on February 11, 2021. The court later awarded Poire $8,000 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that permits certain fee awards paid from agency funds.

On remand, the administrative law judge issued a favorable decision, and Poire received approximately $83,000 in past-due benefits. Her counsel, Karl E. Osterhout, then sought $21,383 in fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). The Commissioner did not oppose the requested amount but asked the court to authorize payment from the past-due benefits rather than direct the Commissioner to pay the fee.

Court’s analysis

Section 406(b) permits a court to award a reasonable fee to a successful claimant’s attorney for work performed before the court. The fee may not exceed 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits. The court independently had to determine whether the requested amount was reasonable.

The court found that Poire was a successful claimant because the representation ultimately resulted in an award of approximately $83,000 in past-due disability benefits. The requested $21,383 represented 25% of that amount and complied with the statutory cap.

The court also found the fee reasonable. Poire had agreed to pay counsel 25% of any past-due benefits awarded. Counsel reported spending 45.2 hours on the case, producing an effective hourly rate of $473.08. The court found no indication that counsel caused delay or provided substandard representation, and it found that the number of hours was not excessive given the complexity of the administrative and judicial record.

Because attorneys may receive fees under both the Equal Access to Justice Act and Section 406(b) for the same work, counsel must return the smaller fee to the claimant. The $8,000 Equal Access to Justice Act award was smaller than the Section 406(b) award.

Disposition

The court granted Poire’s motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). It authorized payment of $21,383 to Karl E. Osterhout from the amount withheld from Poire’s past-due benefits for court-related services. Upon receiving that amount, counsel must remit $8,000 directly to Poire.