Marcoux v. Commissioner Of Social Security
- Ona Wang
- 1:18-cv-01641-OTW
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Marcoux v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Wang granted counsel’s fee motion and ordered payment of $8,284.50 from past-due benefits.
Douglas Marcoux, his attorney Daniel A. Osborn of Osborn Law, P.C., and the Social Security Administration. The order authorizes payment of $8,284.50 in attorney’s fees and requires counsel to refund $6,627.60 to Marcoux.
What happened
In Marcoux v. Commissioner of Social Security, Douglas Marcoux’s attorney asked the court to approve $8,284.50 in fees under a law governing attorney payments from Social Security past-due benefits. The Social Security Administration had withheld that amount after Marcoux was awarded past-due benefits following a court-ordered remand.
The court found that the requested fee did not exceed 25% of Marcoux’s past-due benefits, was supported by the attorney’s work, and would not be an improper extra benefit to counsel. The court also found that the request was filed on time. The fee agreement provided for the greater of 25% of past-due benefits or the amount available under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Judge Ona T. Wang granted the motion, directed the Social Security Administration to approve payment of $8,284.50 to Daniel A. Osborn of Osborn Law, P.C., and ordered counsel to refund $6,627.60—the smaller fee previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act—to Marcoux after receiving payment.
The detailed version
- Marcoux v. Commissioner Of Social Security · No. 1:18-cv-01641-OTW
- Ona Wang
- May 19, 2023
Background
The court had previously remanded Douglas Marcoux’s Social Security case to the Commissioner. After Marcoux received past-due benefits, the Social Security Administration advised him that it had withheld $8,284.50, which represented 25% of his past-due benefits, for a possible attorney-fee request. Marcoux’s counsel then filed a motion under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) seeking approval of $8,284.50 in attorney’s fees.
The fee agreement provided that attorney’s fees would be the greater of 25% of any past-due benefits or the amount obtained under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court had previously awarded counsel fees under that Act.
Court’s analysis
Section 406(b) allows a court to approve a reasonable fee for an attorney who represented a claimant in court and obtained a favorable judgment, subject to a limit of 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits. The court explained that it independently reviews contingent-fee agreements to ensure that they produce a reasonable result. Its review considers whether the request exceeds the 25% limit, whether the agreement resulted from fraud or overreaching, and whether the fee would be an improper windfall to counsel.
The court found that the requested $8,284.50 did not exceed 25% of Marcoux’s past-due benefits. It also found that counsel’s work was reasonable and comparable to hourly work and rates approved by other courts in the district. Because counsel’s efforts resulted in Marcoux receiving past-due benefits and the billing records showed appropriate time for each task, the court found that the fee would not be a windfall. The court also found the motion timely because counsel filed it twelve days after the notice concerning the change in benefits, within the applicable 14-day period.
The parties represented that, if both the Equal Access to Justice Act fee and the Section 406(b) fee were approved, counsel would refund Marcoux the smaller award. The court noted that the previously awarded Equal Access to Justice Act fee was $6,627.60.
Disposition
Judge Ona T. Wang granted Marcoux’s motion for attorney’s fees. The court directed the Social Security Administration to approve payment of $8,284.50 to Daniel A. Osborn of Osborn Law, P.C. After receiving that payment, counsel must promptly refund $6,627.60 to Marcoux. The clerk was directed to close the fee-motion docket entry.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.