Zagado v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:20-cv-09449
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Zagado v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Aaron granted counsel $14,132.98 in fees and ordered a $7,123 refund to Zagado.
Russelladrian Panopio Zagado and his counsel; the order awards counsel $14,132.98 and requires counsel to refund $7,123 to Zagado.
What happened
In Zagado v. Commissioner of Social Security, the Commissioner issued a favorable decision for Russelladrian Panopio Zagado after the case was sent back for further proceedings. Zagado’s lawyer asked the court for $14,132.98 in fees for work on the case.
The court found the requested fee reasonable because it was within the legal limit, there was no evidence of fraud or unfair pressure, and the award was not excessive compared with the work performed. The court also addressed an earlier fee award paid under a separate federal law.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted the motion and awarded counsel $14,132.98. After receiving that amount, counsel must refund the full earlier award of $7,123 directly to Zagado.
The detailed version
- Zagado v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-09449
- Stewart Aaron
- June 16, 2023
Background
The court considered a motion by Russelladrian Panopio Zagado’s counsel for attorney’s fees under Section 406(b) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The motion followed a favorable decision for Zagado by the Commissioner of Social Security after remand. Counsel requested $14,132.98 for 38.2 hours of work: 30.9 attorney hours and 7.3 paralegal hours.
A benefits letter indicated that the agency withheld 25% of Zagado’s past-due benefits, totaling $26,132.98. The court noted that a representative at the agency level intended to seek $12,000 in fees. The court also noted that the 25% cap discussed in Section 406(b) applies to fees for court representation, not the combined fees for court and agency representation.
Reasonableness of the fee
Section 406(b) allows a court to award a reasonable fee of no more than 25% of a claimant’s past-due benefits. When a valid contingency-fee agreement exists, the court independently reviews the requested amount to ensure that it is reasonable. The court first considers whether the requested percentage is within the 25% cap and whether fraud or overreaching occurred. It also considers the character of the representation and results achieved, whether counsel caused delay, and whether the fee would be an improper windfall compared with the time spent.
The court found the requested fee reasonable. It concluded that the award did not exceed 25% of past-due benefits, found no evidence or suggestion of fraud or overreaching, and determined that the award would not be a windfall.
Refund of earlier fees
Counsel had also received $7,123 under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a separate federal fee statute. When counsel receives both an Equal Access to Justice Act award and a Section 406(b) award, the claimant must receive a refund equal to the smaller fee. Counsel argued that the refund should be $7,100 because it excluded $23 in expenses. The Commissioner argued that the refund should be the full $7,123.
The court rejected counsel’s position because counsel provided no legal support for deducting expenses before making the refund. The court therefore ordered that, upon receiving the Section 406(b) award, counsel refund the entire $7,123 Equal Access to Justice Act award directly to Zagado.
Disposition
The court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees. It awarded counsel $14,132.98 and directed counsel, upon receipt of that sum, to refund $7,123 directly to Zagado.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.