Ferrara v. Berryhill
- Andrew Carter
- 1:18-cv-00022
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ferrara v. Berryhill, Judge Carter granted the motion in part and denied it in part, approving $20,000 but rejecting an offset and ordering a refund.
William Ferrara and his attorney were affected: the attorney was allowed to receive $20,000 under Section 406(b) but was required to refund $4,588.77 to Ferrara. The Commissioner of Social Security was also involved in the fee proceedings.
What happened
Ferrara v. Berryhill involved William Ferrara’s challenge to a Social Security decision. The court had previously reversed that decision and sent the case back to the Social Security Administration. Ferrara’s lawyer later sought $20,000 in fees from Ferrara’s past-due benefits under a federal law governing fees in Social Security cases.
The court found the requested $20,000 reasonable. It was below the legal limit of 25% of Ferrara’s past-due benefits, and the court found no fraud, improper delay, or excessive fee. The lawyer had spent 22.4 hours on the case and had already received $4,588.77 under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the fee request but denied the lawyer’s request to subtract the earlier $4,588.77 award from the $20,000. The court ordered the lawyer to refund the $4,588.77 directly to Ferrara. The order described the motion overall as granted in part and denied in part.
The detailed version
- Ferrara v. Berryhill · No. 1:18-cv-00022
- Andrew Carter
- Nov. 18, 2020
Background
William Ferrara filed this Social Security appeal on January 2, 2018, against Nancy Berryhill, who was then the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. In September 2018, the parties agreed to reverse the Commissioner’s decision and remand the case to the Commissioner. The court approved that agreement, and judgment was entered on October 2, 2018.
Ferrara later sought attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that can authorize fee awards in cases against the government. The court approved an award of $4,588.77 on April 2, 2019. After the Social Security Administration notified Ferrara that he was entitled to $177,648 in past-due benefits, 25% of that amount was withheld for attorney’s fees. Ferrara’s lawyer then sought $20,000 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).
Legal standard
Section 406(b) permits a court to approve a reasonable fee for a lawyer who represented a claimant successfully in court, subject to a limit of 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits. The lawyer must show that the requested fee is reasonable. The court considers the contingent-fee agreement and whether the fee is out of line with the representation and result, whether the lawyer unreasonably delayed the case to increase the benefits and fee, and whether the award would be an improper windfall compared with the time spent. The court also considers fraud, overreaching, and the statutory 25% limit.
When both Equal Access to Justice Act fees and Section 406(b) fees are awarded, the lawyer may not keep both amounts as additional compensation. The lawyer must refund the smaller award to the claimant. The two awards cannot simply be offset against each other.
Court’s ruling
The court found the contingent-fee agreement and the requested $20,000 fee reasonable. The request was below the 25% cap: 25% of Ferrara’s $177,648 in past-due benefits was $44,412. The court found no evidence of fraud or overreaching, unreasonable delay, or a fee out of line with the representation and result. The lawyer had spent 22.4 hours on the case, producing a de facto hourly rate of $892.86, which the court found was not an improper windfall under the circumstances.
The court’s order stated that the motion for $20,000 in fees was GRANTED. It also stated that the lawyer’s request to offset that amount by the previously awarded $4,588.77 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees was DENIED. The lawyer was ORDERED to refund the $4,588.77 directly to Ferrara. The order therefore described the motion overall as granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the fee motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.