Spero v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Ralph Spero applied for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance benefits on October 5, 2017. His applications were denied initially and after a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. The Appeals Council affirmed the denial on July 7, 2020.

Spero then filed an action in the Southern District of New York seeking review under the Social Security Act. On March 10, 2021, Judge Debra Freeman approved the parties’ agreement to send the matter back to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. The Social Security Administration later found Spero disabled and awarded past-due benefits. It withheld $20,562, equal to 25% of those benefits, while attorney-fee requests were considered.

The parties had also agreed that the Commissioner would pay $1,410 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, or EAJA, for work performed in federal court. Judge Freeman approved that fee award. Spero’s counsel did not receive the EAJA payment because of a Treasury offset connected to a debt that Spero owed, according to the Commissioner’s response.

Fee request

Spero’s counsel, Jonathan R. Klee of Klee Woolf Goldman & Filpi, LLP, asked the court to approve $1,410 for 7.05 hours of federal-court work. The request represented an hourly rate of $200. The motion stated that counsel also sought a separate fee for administrative-level work. The Social Security Administration later authorized $12,548.25 for that work, rather than the $14,438.25 amount initially referenced in the motion.

Together, the $1,410 federal-court request and the $12,548.25 administrative fee totaled $13,958.25, which was below the $20,562 amount withheld and below the 25% limit applicable to fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The Commissioner did not oppose the request and deferred to the court’s assessment of whether it was reasonable.

Court’s analysis

Under Section 406(b), when a court enters a favorable judgment for a Social Security claimant represented by counsel, it may approve a reasonable attorney fee. The fee may not exceed 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits. A fee within that limit is not automatically reasonable. The court also considers the quality and result of the representation, the time spent, whether counsel caused delay, whether the fee would be an unjustified windfall, and whether fraud or overreaching occurred in creating the fee agreement.

Judge Figueredo found that the factors supported the requested fee. The $1,410 request was within the 25% limit, the 7.05 hours were reasonable for the services provided, and the resulting $200 hourly rate was reasonable. The fee agreement permitted counsel to receive up to 25% of past-due benefits, but the requested amount was well below that ceiling and was not an excessive windfall. The court also found no evidence of fraud or overreaching, no delay caused by counsel, and effective representation that resulted in a remand and ultimately an award of benefits.

Disposition

The court granted Spero’s application for $1,410 in attorney fees. It directed the Social Security Administration to approve and effectuate payment of $1,410 to Spero’s counsel and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.