Casiano v. Saul

Background

Marisol Casiano sued the Commissioner of Social Security seeking past-due Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. The Social Security Administration initially denied her application. After hearings, review, and remand by the Appeals Council, an administrative law judge again denied the application. Casiano then retained counsel and filed this federal case.

The parties agreed to send the case back to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. The court also awarded Casiano’s counsel $5,800 under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a statute that allows certain attorney-fee awards paid by the government.

After a third administrative hearing, Casiano was found disabled and approved for benefits. The Social Security Administration determined that her past-due benefits totaled $194,505.50 and withheld $48,626.38, or 25%, for representative fees. Lawyers who assisted with the administrative application received $19,600.22 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(a). Casiano’s federal-court counsel sought $29,026.16 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The request was based on a contingency-fee agreement providing for 25% of past-due benefits.

Reasonableness of the fee

Section 406(b) permits a court to award a reasonable fee for successful representation in federal court, subject to a limit of 25% of the past-due benefits. The court reviewed the contingency-fee agreement as an independent check on whether it produced a reasonable result. Relevant considerations included the quality of the representation, the result achieved, any delay caused by counsel, fraud or overreaching in forming the agreement, and whether the fee would be an improper windfall.

The court found the requested fee reasonable. It was below the 25% statutory limit, and counsel voluntarily sought less than the amount that could have been requested. The court found no claim or evidence that counsel’s representation was inadequate, that counsel caused undue delay, or that counsel acted fraudulently or overreached. The court also considered counsel’s reported experience, the relationship with Casiano, the absence of evidence that Casiano was dissatisfied, and the uncertainty of obtaining benefits because the application had previously been denied.

EAJA refund

The court explained that counsel could receive fees under both Section 406(b) and the Equal Access to Justice Act for the same work, but counsel must refund to the claimant the smaller award. Because the $5,800 EAJA award was smaller than the Section 406(b) award, counsel had to refund $5,800 to Casiano.

Ruling

Judge John G. Koeltl granted the motion for attorney’s fees. The court awarded Casiano’s counsel $29,026.16 under Section 406(b), stating that the amount was less than 25% of Casiano’s $194,505.50 in past-due benefits. The court ordered counsel to refund $5,800 to Casiano and directed the Clerk to close the listed fee-motion entries.