Gardner v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 22, 2024
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01477
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Troy Boone Gardner, No. CV-20-01477-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Troy Gardner’s (“Plaintiff”) counsel’s Motion 16 for Attorney Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). (Doc. 25). The Commissioner of Social 17 Security Administration (“Defendant” or “SSA”) filed a response offering an analysis to 18 assist the Court. (Doc. 26). The Court now rules. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Following denials at the administrative level, Plaintiff filed this action seeking 21 judicial review of the SSA’s decision. (Doc. 1). After the parties submitted briefing, (Doc. 22 14; Doc. 19; Doc. 20), the Court entered an order reversing the ALJ’s decision and 23 remanding this matter for further administrative proceedings, and the Clerk of the Court 24 entered judgment in this case, (Doc. 22). On Plaintiff’s motion, the Court awarded Plaintiff 25 $3,842.32 in attorney fees and $400.00 in costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act 26 (“EAJA”). (Doc. 23; Doc. 24). On remand, an ALJ issued a fully favorable disability 27 decision, finding Plaintiff disabled as of August 1, 2012. (See Doc. 25-1 at 3). Thereafter, 28 the Commissioner issued a Notice of Award indicating that Plaintiff’s total past-due 1 benefits amounted to $246,931.00 and stating that $61,732.75 had been withheld for 2 payment of attorney fees. (See id. at 4) (stating that the Commissioner “usually withhold[s] 3 25 percent of past due benefits,” and had withheld $61,732.75). 4 Plaintiff’s counsel now seeks a fee award of $20,145.00 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 5 406(b). (Doc. 25 at 3). 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 A court entering judgment in favor of a social security claimant represented by 8 counsel “may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such 9 representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the 10 claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment.” 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). Although 11 “[t]he statute does not specify how courts should determine whether a requested fee is 12 reasonable,” Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2009), the Supreme Court 13 of the United States has made clear that the first step is to respect “the primacy of lawful 14 attorney-client fee agreements,” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 793 (2002). A court 15 may take a downward departure from a requested fee award “if the attorney provided 16 substandard representation or delayed the case, or if the requested fee would result in a 17 windfall.” Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1151. A court can also “consider the lodestar calculation, 18 but only as an aid in assessing the reasonableness of the fee.” Id. (citing Gisbrecht, 535 19 U.S. at 808). “Because the SSA has no direct interest” in how the award is apportioned 20 between client and counsel, district courts must independently “assure that the 21 reasonableness of the fee is established.” Id. at 1149. 22 In determining whether fees sought under § 406(b) are reasonable, the Court 23 considers the contingent-fee agreement, the character of the attorney’s representation, and 24 the result achieved. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808. Courts may also consider the number of 25 hours spent representing the claimant and the lawyer’s normal hourly billing rate for non- 26 contingent-fee cases, but this information does not control the reasonableness 27 determination. Id. at 808–09. Finally, if a claimant’s attorney receives fees under both the 28 EAJA and § 406(b), the attorney must “refund to the claimant the amount of the smaller 1 fee.” Id. at 796 (citation omitted). 2 Applying the Gisbrecht factors, the fee requested is reasonable here. Plaintiff 3 contracted to pay 25 percent of the past-due benefits on a contingent fee basis for work 4 performed by Plaintiff’s counsel in this action, and the fee requested in fact is less than 25 5 percent of the past-due benefits. (Doc. 25-3 at 1; Doc. 25 at 3). Plaintiff’s counsel’s 6 itemization of services indicates 23.7 hours of services rendered. (Doc. 25-2 at 1). 7 Plaintiff’s counsel requests an hourly rate of $850.00 per hour. (Doc. 25 at 2). This amount 8 is in line with effective hourly rates previously approved by the Ninth Circuit Court of 9 Appeals. See Young v. Colvin, No. CV-11-538-PHX-SMM, 2014 WL 590335, at *2 (D. 10 Ariz. Feb. 14, 2014) (citing Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1153) (noting approval of effective 11 hourly rates of $519, $875, and $902). Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel has represented to the 12 Court that she has practiced in the area of Social Security Disability law since 2010 and 13 has handled more than 1,500 such cases, among other indicators of Plaintiff’s counsel’s 14 extensive experience in the area of Social Security Disability law. (Doc. 25 at 2–3). 15 On the instant record, there is no indication of any substandard performance by 16 Plaintiff’s counsel. There is also no indication of substandard performance or undue delay 17 in prosecuting Plaintiff’s case. Indeed, through Plaintiff’s counsel’s efforts, Plaintiff was 18 awarded all benefits for which Plaintiff applied. Thus, upon consideration of the Gisbrecht 19 reasonableness factors, in addition to the risk involved in the contingency fee arrangement 20 in this case, the Court concludes that a fee award of $20,145.00 is reasonable and will 21 approve an award in this amount. Because Plaintiff’s counsel “must refund to the claimant 22 the amount of the smaller fee,” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796, the Court will order Plaintiff’s 23 counsel to refund the $3,842.32 EAJA award to Plaintiff upon Plaintiff’s counsel’s receipt 24 of the attorney fees awarded by this Order. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// I. CONCLUSION 2 Therefore, 3 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's counsel’s Motion for Attorney Fees under 42 4|| U.S.C. § 406(b)(1), (Doc. 25), is GRANTED in the amount of $20,145.00. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's counsel shall, after receipt of the || above-awarded fee, refund to Plaintiff the fee previously awarded under the EAJA, in the amount of $3,842.32. 8 Dated this 22nd day of April, 2024. 9 10 i C 11 James A. Teilborg 12 Senior United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-