Dowdy v. Bowen

636 F. Supp. 591, 14 Soc. Serv. Rev. 572
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri
DecidedApril 2, 1986
Docket84-0822-CV-W-8
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 636 F. Supp. 591 (Dowdy v. Bowen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dowdy v. Bowen, 636 F. Supp. 591, 14 Soc. Serv. Rev. 572 (W.D. Mo. 1986).

Opinion

ORDER

STEVENS, District Judge.

Before the court is the petition of plaintiff’s counsel for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 206(b)(1) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1).

I. Facts

Counsel represented social security claimant William G. Dowdy, now deceased, and his surviving spouse Ethel Dowdy, who was substituted as plaintiff, in the above-styled disability benefits action. This court’s order of October 2, 1985, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, thus entitling plaintiff to accrued benefits in the amount of $25,036.26. The Secretary has withheld twenty-five percent of those benefits, which amounts to $6,259.06, pursuant to section 406(b) pending notifica *593 tion that an award of attorney’s fees has been made.

Counsel requests a total fee award of $3,687.19. This amount includes $3,120.00 for thirty-one hours of “legal services” rendered at both the administrative level and before this court. The suggested hourly rate of $100.00 is the contractual rate agreed upon by counsel and the claimant. Additionally, counsel seeks reimbursement of $567.19 for “advanced monies and paid expenses” made by him on behalf of the claimant. This latter sum includes the following fees:

Processing $210.00
Clerk 255.56
Postage/Mailing - 11.39
Long Distance Telephone Calls 21.59
Copies 68.65
$567.19

II. Discussion

As a starting point, the court reminds counsel that attorney’s fees may be awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) only for representation before the court and not for services rendered on claimant’s behalf in any administrative proceedings before the Secretary of Health and Human Services. “It is well-settled that the court is without jurisdiction to award fees for services at the administrative level.” Fenix v. Finch, 436 F.2d 831, 838 (8th Cir.1971) (citations omitted). See also Morris v. Social Security Administration, 689 F.2d 495, 496-97 (4th Cir.1982); Whitt v. Califano, 601 F.2d 160, 161-62 (4th Cir.1979); MacDonald v. Weinberger, 512 F.2d 144, 146 (9th Cir.1975); Brissette v. Heckler, 613 F.Supp. 722, 725 (E.D.Mo.1985). Counsel must apply to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to obtain a fee award for legal services performed at the administrative level. See Fenix v. Finch, 436 F.2d at 838. Accordingly, counsel may recover fees from this court only for the 11.9 hours of work performed before the court.

The court next considers counsel’s requested hourly rate of $100. The court recognizes that attorneys in social security matters, like counsel in this case, often have fee arrangements with their clients. The court, however, is not bound automatically to accept and award the agreed upon rate. See Lewis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 707 F.2d 246, 248 (6th Cir.1983); MacDonald v. Weinberger, 512 F.2d 144, 147 (9th Cir.1975); McKittrick v. Gardner, 378 F.2d 872, 873 (4th Cir.1967); Redden v. Celebrezze, 370 F.2d 373, 376 (4th Cir.1966).

Furthermore, the court is not bound to award to counsel the full twenty-five percent of past due benefits. See, e.g., Garber v. Heckler, 607 F.Supp. 574, 575 (E.D.N.Y.1985). In fact, in the vast majority of cases, a reasonable award will be less than the statutory maximum of twenty-five percent. See Allen v. Heckler, 588 F.Supp. 1247, 1250 (W.D.N.Y.1984).

In this case the requested hourly rate of $100 seems excessive when the court considers factors such as the novelty and difficulty of the legal issues involved, the length and amount of work put into the brief, and the rate normally charged for legal work of this type. Accordingly, the court finds that $75.00 is a reasonable hourly rate in this case. See, e.g., Brissette v. Heckler, 613 F.Supp. 722, 726 (E.D.Mo.1985) ($60.00 per hour); Garber v. Heckler, 607 F.Supp. 574, 576 (E.D.N.Y.1985) ($75.00 per hour). Furthermore, $75.00 is the statutorily set hourly rate embodied in the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and it is appropriate to use this figure as a guide. See suggestion urging counsel to proceed under the EAJA infra p. 594.

Additionally, the court wishes to address the fact that counsel seeks compensation out of claimant’s past-due benefits for costs that should be recovered from the defendant, the Secretary of Health and Human Services. For example, clerk’s fees in the amount of $255.56 are costs, as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, and are recoverable from the United States pursuant to *594 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a). 2 Any expenses counsel incurred on behalf of his client that are not recoverable as costs should be recovered by counsel pursuant to his agreement with his client; this court cannot order such expenses to be paid from the withheld portion of claimant’s past-due benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (no provision for an award of expenses). Accord Burnett v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 621, 628 (8th Cir.1985) (because § 406(b) has no provision for award of interest, interest not available under this section).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Schellhorn v. Kijakazi
W.D. Missouri, 2023
McDannel v. Apfel
78 F. Supp. 2d 944 (S.D. Iowa, 1999)
Knagge v. Sullivan
735 F. Supp. 411 (M.D. Florida, 1990)
Melton v. Bowen
673 F. Supp. 353 (W.D. Missouri, 1987)
Sumler v. Bowen
656 F. Supp. 1322 (W.D. Arkansas, 1987)
Roberts v. Bowen
652 F. Supp. 276 (N.D. Iowa, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
636 F. Supp. 591, 14 Soc. Serv. Rev. 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dowdy-v-bowen-mowd-1986.