Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security

Background

Carlos A. Torres sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability benefits. In December 2018, the parties agreed to send the case back to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. In February 2019, the Commissioner agreed to pay $972.55 in attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act for five hours of attorney work in the case.

After the remand, the Commissioner issued a March 17, 2020 decision finding that Torres was entitled to disability benefits. Notice-of-award letters stated that Torres’s past-due benefits, including benefits for auxiliary beneficiaries, totaled $154,524.10. Torres’s counsel then moved for a $3,000 fee award under section 406(b) of the Social Security Act. The opinion identifies counsel as Michael S. Aranoff in the discussion of the motion, but the conclusion directs payment to Michael A. Aranoff.

Fee standard and analysis

Section 406(b) permits a court to award a reasonable fee for an attorney’s successful representation in court, subject to a limit of 25 percent of the claimant’s past-due benefits. The court independently reviews the fee request to determine whether it is reasonable. The relevant considerations include whether the fee exceeds the 25-percent limit, whether the fee agreement resulted from fraud or improper pressure, and whether the fee would give the attorney an excessive benefit compared with the work performed.

The court found that the $3,000 request was far below 25 percent of the past-due benefits. Torres had agreed to pay 25 percent of his past-due benefits under a retainer and contingent-fee agreement, which would have amounted to $38,631.02 based on the stated benefits. Counsel represented that he spent five hours on the federal case, obtained the remand, and submitted billing records. The court found no evidence of fraud or improper pressure.

The court also found that the requested fee was not an excessive benefit to counsel. It considered counsel’s experience in Social Security law, the short time spent obtaining the remand, Torres’s successful result and lack of expressed dissatisfaction, and the uncertainty created by multiple earlier denials of benefits.

Timeliness

The Commissioner noted that the fee motion was filed on April 28, 2022, after the 14-day period generally applicable to such motions following the notices of award issued in March, August, and September 2020. The court explained that it could extend that deadline when circumstances warranted. Because counsel reported severe COVID-19 illness and related medical problems, and because the notices were issued during the emergence and height of the pandemic, the court extended the deadline and treated the motion as timely.

Earlier fee award

When an attorney receives fees for the same work under both the Equal Access to Justice Act and section 406(b), the attorney generally must refund the smaller award to the claimant. Here, however, the $972.55 Equal Access to Justice Act award had been used to offset a debt Torres owed to the federal government. The court therefore stated that no refund issue arose in this case.

Ruling

Judge Ona T. Wang granted Torres’s motion for attorney’s fees under section 406(b). The Social Security Administration was directed to approve a payment of $3,000 to the attorney. The opinion uses two different first names for counsel—Michael S. Aranoff in the motion discussion and Michael A. Aranoff in the conclusion—so the exact intended first name is unclear.