Avila v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Avila brought this action seeking review of the denial of his applications for Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits. An administrative law judge initially found that he was not disabled, and the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council declined review.

Avila and the Commissioner then filed competing motions for judgment on the pleadings, meaning they asked the court to decide the case based on the administrative record and written submissions. Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman recommended granting Avila’s motion, denying the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanding the case for further development of the record. No party objected, and the court adopted that recommendation on August 25, 2021.

After remand, an administrative law judge found Avila disabled and entitled to benefits. The Administration issued a notice stating that it withheld $24,017 from Avila’s past-due benefits for payment of counsel fees. Avila’s attorney, Daniel Osborn, sought that amount under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The record also showed that the court had previously awarded $7,532 in fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo’s recommendation concerning the Equal Access to Justice Act fees. Because no party objected and the court found no error, it adopted the recommendation and granted Avila’s application for $7,532 in fees and costs.

For the requested § 406(b) award, the court explained that attorney fees could not exceed 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits. It also considered whether the fee agreement involved fraud or overreaching and whether the requested amount was reasonable in light of the representation, any attorney-caused delay, and whether the fee would be an excessive payment compared with the work performed.

The court found that Osborn’s $24,017 request was below the 25% limit and that no evidence suggested fraud or overreaching. It also found no dissatisfaction with the representation, no attorney-caused delay, and no excessive payment. In reaching that conclusion, the court noted that Osborn had spent 34.2 hours on the federal case, reviewed a 571-page administrative record, prepared an 18-page legal memorandum, and represented Avila over a substantial period. The court also considered the uncertainty created by the earlier denials of benefits.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation and granted the application for $7,532 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees and costs. It also granted Osborn’s application for $24,017 in attorney fees under § 406(b).

Because fees were awarded under both statutes for the same work, the court ordered Osborn to refund the smaller $7,532 award to Avila. It directed the clerk to terminate the motions identified as Documents 30 and 34 and close the case.