Hart v. Social Security
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:19-cv-06663-KMK-LMS
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hart v. Social Security, Judge Karas granted counsel’s request for $20,152.63 in fees from Hart’s past-due benefits.
Donna Hart, her attorney, and Hart’s past-due Social Security benefits are directly affected. The approved $20,152.63 fee is paid from those benefits, while the previously awarded $5,963.63 Equal Access to Justice Act fee must be refunded directly to Hart.
What happened
In Donna Hart v. Commissioner of Social Security, Hart’s attorney asked the court to approve $20,152.63 in fees for successfully representing her in the case. The court had sent the case back to the Social Security Administration, which later awarded Hart benefits.
The requested fee represented 25% of Hart’s past-due benefits and matched the fee agreement. The Commissioner did not object, and the opinion found no evidence of fraud or improper pressure. Hart’s attorney had also received $5,963.63 under a separate fee law and agreed to return that smaller amount to Hart.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ruled that the requested fee was reasonable and granted the request. The fee is paid from Hart’s past-due benefits, and the $5,963.63 previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act must be refunded directly to Hart.
The detailed version
- Hart v. Social Security · No. 7:19-cv-06663-KMK-LMS
- Kenneth Karas
- Nov. 9, 2022
Background
Donna Hart previously challenged the Social Security Administration’s denial of her benefits claim in federal district court. In July 2020, the court remanded, or sent back, the case for further proceedings. Hart then received a favorable decision, and the Social Security Administration withheld $20,152.63 from her past-due benefits for possible payment to her representative.
Hart’s attorney filed a request under Section 406(b) of the Social Security Act for approval of the $20,152.63 fee. The Commissioner stated that the request did not exceed 25% of Hart’s past-due benefits, was consistent with the contingency-fee agreement, and presented no evidence of fraud or overreaching. The Commissioner did not object to the request but deferred to the court’s assessment of whether the fee was reasonable.
Timeliness
The opinion applied the Second Circuit’s rule that the filing period in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B), consisting of 14 days plus three mailing days, applies to Section 406(b) fee requests. It concluded that the request was timely. The opinion contains conflicting dates for the Social Security Administration’s notice of award: one passage identifies October 25, 2022, while another identifies October 25, 2021.
Reasonableness of the Fee
Section 406(b) permits a court to award a reasonable fee to an attorney who successfully represented a claimant, with the fee paid from the claimant’s past-due benefits and capped at 25% of those benefits. The court considers the contingency-fee agreement, the quality and results of the representation, and whether the fee would be an improper windfall.
Hart’s attorney reported spending 28.5 hours on the district-court work. The requested fee therefore amounted to a stated effective hourly rate of $707.11. The Commissioner identified the relevant reasonableness factors and left the final determination to the court. The court ultimately agreed that the fee request was reasonable.
Prior Equal Access to Justice Act Award
In August 2020, the court had awarded $5,963.63 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. A claimant’s attorney may receive fees under both laws, but must refund the smaller award to the claimant. Hart’s attorney recognized that he had to pay the previously awarded $5,963.63 directly to Hart.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas stated that Hart’s counsel’s fee request was reasonable and therefore granted it. The order approves the requested $20,152.63 fee under Section 406(b).
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.