Morrison v. Colvin

Background

Sean Morrison brought an action under Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance benefits. After the Commissioner initially denied the application and an administrative law judge upheld the denial, Morrison challenged that decision in federal court.

Morrison’s lawyer, Christopher James Bowes, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Commissioner stipulated to a remand for further proceedings. On remand, an administrative law judge issued a favorable decision, and the Social Security Administration calculated that Morrison was entitled to $87,216 in past-due benefits for July 2012 through June 2018.

Morrison and Bowes had a contingent-fee agreement under which Morrison agreed to pay Bowes 25% of any past-due benefits awarded. Bowes had already received $4,668.48 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that allows certain fee awards against the government. He then sought $21,804 under Section 406(b), which is exactly 25% of $87,216.

Timeliness

The court held that Bowes’s fee motion was timely. Social Security fee motions ordinarily must be filed within 14 days after judgment, but that period is extended while the claimant and counsel await the Administration’s calculation of past-due benefits. Bowes requested a 30-day extension, with the Commissioner’s consent, because of workload and family matters. The court granted that extension and concluded that the motion was timely.

Reasonableness of the Fee

Section 406(b) allows a court to award a reasonable fee of no more than 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits. The court independently reviewed the request for reasonableness rather than automatically enforcing the fee agreement.

The court found that the request satisfied the 25% limit. It also found no evidence that the fee agreement resulted from fraud or overreaching. Neither Morrison nor the Commissioner opposed the motion.

The court further concluded that the fee would not be an improper windfall. Bowes’s work led to a successful remand and ultimately to an award of the benefits sought. His brief was not boilerplate; it cited the record and presented legal arguments. The court also found that 23.3 hours of work was reasonable. Although the resulting hourly rate of $935.52 was higher than Bowes’s usual rate, the court concluded that the rate was reasonable for a contingent Social Security case.

Disposition

Judge Ona T. Wang granted Bowes’s fee motion. The court awarded him $17,135.52, representing 25% of Morrison’s past-due benefits minus the $4,668.48 previously paid under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court also granted the request for an extension of time to file the fee motion and directed the Clerk of Court to close the related docket entries.