Fagundes v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 20, 2024
• Docket: 3:19-cv-06188
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 3

4 RONALD D. FAGUNDES, Case No. 3:19-cv-6188-RSM 5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 6 MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES v. PURSANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 7

8 COMMISIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

9 Defendant. 10 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Ronald Fagundes’s Motion for Attorney 11 12 Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Dkt. #18. Plaintiff seeks fees in the amount of $15,000. This 13 amount is calculated as a requested gross fee of $20,085.32 minus the fee of $5,085.32 previously 14 ordered under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Id. Defendant neither supports nor 15 opposes counsel’s request. Dkt. #20 at 4. However, if Plaintiff’s netted fee request is granted, 16 “the Commissioner respectfully requests that the Order distinguish between the full amount 17 18 determined as reasonable under 406(b) and the net amount awarded for payment purpose.” Id. 19 Attorney’s fees may be awarded to a successful social security claimant’s lawyer for his 20 or her representation before a court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 406(b). Straw v. Bowen, 866 F.2d 21 1167 (9th Cir.1989). Plaintiff must apply to the Social Security Administration for an award of 22 23 fees for representation at the administrative level. 42 U.S.C. § 406(a); Stenswick v. Bowen, 815 24 F.2d 519 (9th Cir.1987). Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), the Court may allow a reasonable fee for an 25 attorney who represented a Social Security Title II claimant before the Court and obtained a 26 favorable judgment, as long as such fee is not in excess of 25% of the total past-due benefits. See 27 Grisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002). 28 Fee awards may be made under both the EAJA and § 406(b), but the claimant’s attorney 1 2 must refund to the claimant the amount of the smaller fee. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 3 789, 796 (2002). Plaintiff was awarded $113,647.72 in past due benefits. Twenty-five percent 4 of that is $28,411.93, which is greater than the requested award. The Court concludes the request 5 is reasonable within the meaning of § 406(b). Because the awarded EAJA fees were lesser than 6 the gross fee of $20,085.32, Plaintiff’s counsel is due the net amount of $20,085.32 minus the 7 8 $5,085.32 in EAJA fees that were previously awarded—$15,000. See Gisbrecht at 796. 9 CONCLUSION 10 Accordingly, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion, the Commissioner’s Response, the 11 exhibits and declarations attached thereto, and the remainder of the record, the Court ORDERS 12 13 as follows: 14 1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 406(b) is GRANTED in 15 part. Plaintiff’s attorney, Debra J. Venhaus, is awarded reasonable fees in the sum of 16 $15,000 ($20,085.32 minus the fee of $5,085.32 previously ordered under EAJA). 17 2) Any payment of fees is from the claimant’s withheld past-due benefits. If the 18 19 Commissioner has not withheld past-due benefits sufficient to satisfy this order and 20 Plaintiff’s attorney reports she is unable to collect the fee from the claimant, the 21 Commissioner will satisfy this order via the procedures in the Program Operation 22 Manual System (POMS) GN 03920.055.C. 23 DATED this 20th day of June, 2024. 24 25 A 26 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28