Amy Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
This text of Amy Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Amy Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Amy Johnson, No. CV-22-02138-PHX-JAT
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Amy Johnson’s Motion for Attorney Fees 16 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and Memorandum in support thereof. (Docs. 23, 23-1). The 17 Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) did not respond. 18 The Court now rules. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff initially filed her application for social security disability benefits in June 21 2017. The Commissioner denied Plaintiff’s application in August 2020 and the SSA 22 Appeals Council adopted that decision as final. Plaintiff appealed and a Magistrate Judge 23 remanded the case for a new administrative hearing.1 On remand, the ALJ issued a second 24 unfavorable decision in December 2022 and Plaintiff again appealed. In December 2023, 25 this Court reversed the Commissioner’s unfavorable decision and ordered a second remand 26 for further proceedings.2 (Doc. 19); Johnson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-22-
27 1 The Magistrate Judge awarded Plaintiff’s counsel $5,800 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) for representing Plaintiff in the first appeal. (2:20-CV- 28 02151-MHB, Doc. 25 at 2). 2 This Court awarded Plaintiff’s counsel $5,486.83 in attorney fees under the EAJA for 1 02138-PHX-JAT, 2023 WL 8651321, at *1, *5 (D. Ariz. Dec. 14, 2023) (detailing the 2 procedural history of Plaintiff’s case). 3 At the second remand hearing, the ALJ issued a fully favorable decision, awarding 4 Plaintiff $212,900 in backpay, and withholding $52,625.75 for payment of attorney fees. 5 (Doc. 23-5 at 3, 5 (stating that the Commissioner “usually withhold[s] 25 percent of past- 6 due benefits” and had withheld $52,625.75)). 7 Plaintiff’s counsel now seeks this amount—$52,625.75—as a total fee award 8 pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (Doc. 23). 9 II. LEGAL STANDARD 10 A court entering judgment in favor of a Social Security claimant represented by 11 counsel “may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such 12 representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the 13 claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment.” 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). Though “[t]he 14 statute does not specify how courts should determine whether a requested fee is 15 reasonable,” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2009), the Supreme Court 16 has made clear that the first step is to respect “the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee 17 agreements,” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 793 (2002). A court may deviate 18 downward from a requested fee award “if the attorney provided substandard representation 19 or delayed the case, or if the requested fee would result in a windfall.” Crawford, 586 F.3d 20 at 1151. “Because the [Commissioner] has no direct interest” in how the award is 21 apportioned between client and counsel, district courts must independently “assure that the 22 reasonableness of the fee is established.” Id. at 1149. 23 In determining whether fees sought under § 406(b) are reasonable, the Court 24 considers the contingent-fee agreement, the character of the attorney’s representation, and 25 the achieved result. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808. Although not controlling, courts may also 26 consider the number of hours spent representing the claimant and the attorney’s normal 27 representing Plaintiff in the second appeal. (Doc. 22 at 2). Plaintiff’s counsel has thus 28 collected $11,286.83 in fees under the EAJA related to her representation of Plaintiff in both appeals. (Doc. 23-1 at 2). 1 hourly billing rate for non-contingent-fee cases in determining reasonableness. Id. at 808– 2 09. Finally, if a claimant’s attorney receives fees under both the EAJA and § 406(b), the 3 attorney must “refund to the claimant the amount of the smaller fee.” Id. at 796 (citation 4 omitted). 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 Plaintiff contractually agreed to pay counsel 25% of past-due benefits “with no 7 maximum cap.” (Doc. 23-4). Plaintiff’s counsel now seeks $52,625.75, or 25%, of the past- 8 due amount awarded to Plaintiff. (Doc. 23). Counsel’s itemization of services indicates 9 51.85 hours of attorney services rendered. (Doc. 23-3). Plaintiff’s counsel requests an 10 hourly rate of $1,014.96 per hour ($52,625.75/51.85 hours), which is on the high end of 11 effective hourly rates that have been previously approved in this Circuit. See Young v. 12 Colvin, No. CV-11-538-PHX-SMM, 2014 WL 590335, at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 14, 2014) 13 (citing Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1153) (noting approval of effective hourly rates of $519, 14 $875, and $902); see also Hopkins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-08129-PCT- 15 DGC, 2024 WL 3010939, at *1 (D. Ariz. June 14, 2024) (effective hourly rate of $231.94); 16 Mize v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-21-00330-TUC-JGZ, 2024 WL 3951986, at 17 *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 27, 2024) (effective hourly rate of $350.79). 18 However, the $1,014.96 rate is still within the range of reasonableness.3 See 19 Williams v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-20-00136-PHX-JAT, 2025 WL 1342821, 20 at *2 (D. Ariz. May 8, 2025) (approving an effective hourly rate of $1,482.05); see also 21 Roegner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-20-01974-PHX-DLR, 2024 WL 5106647, 22 at *1 (D. Ariz. Dec. 13, 2024) (approving an effective hourly rate of $1,912.35); McCabe 23 v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-22-00192-PHX-DLR, 2025 WL 460744, at *1 (D. 24 Ariz. Feb. 11, 2025) (approving an effective hourly rate of $1,513.51). 25 Furthermore, upon review of the record, the Court finds no indication that Plaintiff’s 26 counsel engaged in any substandard performance or undue delay in prosecuting Plaintiff’s
27 3 Further, the effective hourly rate lowers to $797.28 per hour when the Court factors in the EAJA fees that will be refunded to Plaintiff. (Doc. 23-1 at 2, 5 ($52,625.75 (the 28 requested fee award under § 406(b)(1)(A)) – $11,286.83 (refunded EAJA fees) = $41,338.92/51.85 hours = $797.28/hour)). 1 || case. Indeed, counsel represented Plaintiff through two appeals and obtained a favorable || decision. Through counsel’s efforts, Plaintiff was ultimately awarded all benefits for which 3 || she applied. Thus, upon consideration of the Gisbrecht reasonableness factors, in addition to the risk involved in the contingency fee arrangement in this case, the Court concludes that a fee award of $52,625.75 is reasonable and will approve an award in this amount. 6 Because Plaintiff's counsel “must refund to the claimant the amount of the smaller fee [between the attorney fees payable under both the EAJA and § 406(b)],” Gisbrecht, || 535 U.S. at 796, the Court will order Plaintiff?s counsel to refund the $11,286.83 EAJA 9|| award to Plaintiff upon Plaintiffs counsel’s receipt of the attorney fees awarded by this Order. 11 IV. CONCLUSION 12 Accordingly, 13 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's counsel’s Motion for Attorney Fees under 42 14]) U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A), (Doc. 23), is GRANTED in the amount of $52,625.75. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs counsel shall, after receipt of the above-awarded fee, refund to Plaintiff the fee previously awarded under the EAJA, in the amount of $11,286.83. 18 Dated this 26th day of January, 2026. 19
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Amy Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amy-johnson-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2026.