Delpriora v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:18-cv-10457
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Delpriora v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge McMahon received a recommendation to award counsel $33,444.72 in additional fees.
The ruling directly affected Gary G. Delpriora’s counsel, whose request for Section 406(b) fees was recommended for approval at $33,444.72 after crediting the prior $7,346.16 Equal Access to Justice Act award. It also affected Delpriora because the fees relate to his past-due Social Security benefits.
What happened
In Delpriora v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court had previously sent the Social Security case back to the Commissioner for further proceedings. After those proceedings ended, the plaintiff’s lawyer asked for $40,790.88 in fees under federal law. The Commissioner did not object.
The court found that the requested fee was within the 25% limit on past-due benefits and was reasonable based on the work performed, the successful result, and the absence of fraud, overreaching, or delay by counsel. The court also found that the fee would not be an improper windfall.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker recommended that Judge Colleen McMahon grant the fee request after subtracting $7,346.16 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The recommended additional fee was $33,444.72. The parties had 14 days after service to object to the recommendation.
The detailed version
- Delpriora v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:18-cv-10457
- Colleen McMahon
- Sept. 9, 2021
Background
The case was previously remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings. After the remand proceedings ended, counsel for Gary G. Delpriora moved for approval of $40,790.88 in attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The Commissioner did not oppose the request.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker issued a report and recommendation to District Judge Colleen McMahon. The recommendation explained that Section 406(b) permits a court to approve a reasonable fee for representation in court, up to 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits.
Fee analysis
The court considered whether counsel’s work produced a successful result, whether counsel performed meaningful legal work, and whether the case was handled efficiently. It also considered whether the requested fee stayed within the 25% cap, whether there was evidence of fraud or overreaching, whether the fee would be an improper windfall, how much time counsel spent, whether counsel caused delay, and counsel’s usual noncontingent hourly rate.
The court found that the $40,790.88 request did not exceed 25% of the past-due benefits. It calculated an effective hourly rate of $1,078.55 based on 37.82 attorney hours and 10.42 paralegal hours. The court found the hours reasonable given the services provided and the successful outcome. It also found no fraud or overreaching, no delay attributable to counsel, and no improper windfall.
Recommendation and procedure
The report and recommendation stated that the fee application should be granted, but that the requested amount had to be reduced by the $7,346.16 previously awarded to counsel under the Equal Access to Justice Act. It therefore recommended granting the motion in the amount of $33,444.72.
The report and recommendation instructed the parties that they had 14 days after service to file written objections. The opinion text provided does not state that Judge McMahon later adopted the recommendation or entered a final fee order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.