Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 REGINA DAVIS, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05562-JRC 11 Plaintiff, v. ORDER ON MOTION FOR AN 12 AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 13 SECURITY, 14 Defendant.

15 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant 16 to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Dkt. 24. Defendant does not oppose the Motion. See Dkt. Pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. § 636(c), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, and Local Rule MJR 13, the parties have 18 consented to have this matter heard by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. See Dkt. 2. Under 42 19 U.S.C. § 406(b), the Court may allow a reasonable fee for an attorney who represented a Social 20 Security claimant before the Court and obtained a favorable judgment, as long as such fee is not 21 in excess of 25% of the total past-due benefits. See Grisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002). 22 When a contingency agreement applies, the Court will look first to such agreement and will 23 conduct an independent review to assure the reasonableness of the fee requested, taking into 24 1 consideration the character of the representation and results achieved. See id. at 807, 808. 2 Although the fee agreement is the primary means for determining the fee, the Court may reduce 3 the fee for substandard representation, delay by the attorney, or because a windfall would result 4 from the requested fee. See Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1151 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing

5 Grisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808). 6 Here, Plaintiff signed a contingency fee agreement agreeing to pay her attorney a fee 7 equal to 25% of the amount awarded for past-due benefits. See Dkt. 24-3. The representation was 8 not substandard and the results achieved were excellent. See Dkt. 17; Dkt. 24-2; Grisbrecht, 535 9 U.S. at 808. This Court reversed and remanded this matter to the Administration for further 10 proceedings and, following remand, Plaintiff was awarded benefits. See Dkts. 17, 24-2. There is 11 no evidence of an excessive delay by the attorney or that a windfall will result from the requested 12 fee. 13 Plaintiff moves for attorney’s fees in the total amount of $30,044.23, which is 25% of 14 Plaintiff’s total past-due benefits. See Dkt. 24. Previously, Plaintiff was awarded attorney’s fees

15 of $7,595.10 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Dkt. 23. Therefore, Plaintiff is 16 moving for a remaining attorney’s fee award of $22,449.13. Dkt. 24. After review of the relevant 17 record, Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 24) is GRANTED. 18 Dated this 28th day of December, 2023. 19 A 20 21 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24