Marrero Santana v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Barbara Moses
- 1:17-cv-02648-BCM
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Marrero Santana v. Commissioner, Judge Moses approved a $22,997.75 Social Security fee and required the attorney to refund $7,550.
Geovanny Marrero Santana and his attorney Adam Braverman were affected. The Social Security Administration was directed to approve the payment, and Braverman was required to refund $7,550 to Marrero Santana.
What happened
In Marrero Santana v. Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiff asked the court to approve a payment to his attorney from his past-due Social Security benefits. The requested payment was based on an agreement requiring a fee of 25% of those benefits if the plaintiff won.
The requested fee was $22,997.75, equal to 25% of $91,991 in past-due benefits. The attorney had previously received $7,550 under a separate federal fee law, and agreed to refund that amount to the plaintiff after receiving the larger fee. The Commissioner did not object to the request.
Judge Barbara Moses granted the motion. She found that the fee was within the legal limit, was not the result of fraud or overreaching, and was not an excessive payment for the attorney’s work. She also accepted the explanation for filing the motion late, directed the Social Security Administration to approve the $22,997.75 payment, and ordered the attorney to promptly refund $7,550 to the plaintiff.
The detailed version
- Marrero Santana v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:17-cv-02648-BCM
- Barbara Moses
- Oct. 3, 2022
Background
Geovanny Marrero Santana moved under Section 406(b) of the Social Security Act for approval of a fee for attorney Adam Braverman’s work in the case. Under their fee agreement, Marrero Santana agreed to pay 25% of any past-due benefits awarded, reduced by any fees awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
The court had previously awarded $7,550 in EAJA fees, which Marrero Santana assigned to his attorney. After the Social Security Administration awarded Marrero Santana $91,991 in past-due benefits, the motion requested approval of a $22,997.75 fee—25% of those benefits. The Commissioner did not object.
Court’s Analysis
Section 406(b) allows a court to approve a reasonable attorney fee of up to 25% of a claimant’s past-due benefits. The court reviewed the fee agreement independently to determine whether it produced a reasonable result. It considered whether the fee was within the 25% limit, whether the agreement resulted from fraud or overreaching, and whether the fee would be an improper windfall compared with the work performed.
The court found that all three considerations supported approval. The requested fee was within the statutory limit. The record contained no evidence of fraud or overreaching. Braverman had spent 47.95 hours working on the action, including briefing Marrero Santana’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and replying to the Commissioner’s cross-motion. The court had granted Marrero Santana’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s motion, and remanded the action to the Social Security Administration. Marrero Santana later obtained a finding of disability and past-due benefits.
The court also addressed the filing deadline. The motion was filed nearly a month after the Social Security Administration issued its notice of award, beyond the 14-day period under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B). Braverman attributed the delay to mail-forwarding problems while working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic, travel, and delayed notice of the award. Because he filed the motion six days after learning of the award, the court found the delay excusable and enlarged the filing period.
Disposition
Judge Barbara Moses granted the unopposed motion. The Social Security Administration was directed to approve payment of $22,997.75 to Braverman under Section 406(b). After receiving that payment, Braverman was required to promptly refund $7,550 to Marrero Santana, representing the previously awarded EAJA fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.