Reed v. Berryhill

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 27, 2024
• Docket: 2:18-cv-00675
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 TERRY REED, Case No. 2:18-cv-00675-RSM 10

11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 12 v. PURSANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 13 COMMISIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 14 Defendant. 15

16 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Terry Reed’s Motion for Attorney Fees under 42 17 U.S.C. § 406(b). Dkt. #24. Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $27,729.16. This 18 amount is calculated as 15% of Plaintiff’s retroactive benefits, $212,837.60, minus the fee of 19 $4,196.48 previously ordered under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Id. Defendant 20 21 neither supports nor opposes counsel’s request. Dkt. #26 at 2. However, if Plaintiff’s netted fee 22 request is granted, “the Commissioner respectfully requests that the Order distinguish between 23 the full amount determined as reasonable under 406(b) and the net amount awarded for payment 24 purpose.” Id. at 4. 25 26 Attorney’s fees may be awarded to a successful social security claimant’s lawyer for his 27 or her representation before a court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 406(b). Straw v. Bowen, 866 F.2d 28 1167 (9th Cir.1989). Plaintiff must apply to the Social Security Administration for an award of fees for representation at the administrative level. 42 U.S.C. § 406(a); Stenswick v. Bowen, 815 1 2 F.2d 519 (9th Cir.1987). Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), the Court may allow a reasonable fee for an 3 attorney who represented a Social Security Title II claimant before the Court and obtained a 4 favorable judgment, as long as such fee is not in excess of 25% of the total past-due benefits. See 5 Grisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002). 6 Fee awards may be made under both the EAJA and § 406(b), but the claimant’s attorney 7 8 must refund to the claimant the amount of the smaller fee. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 9 789, 796 (2002). Plaintiff was awarded $212,837.60 in past due benefits. Twenty-five percent 10 of past due benefits is $53,209.40. Plaintiff and his counsel have subsequently agreed to a fifteen 11 percent fee from total past-due benefits, i.e. $31,925.64. Dkt. #24 at 6. The Court concludes this 12 13 amount is reasonable within the meaning of § 406(b). Because the awarded EAJA fees were 14 lesser than $31,925.64, Plaintiff’s counsel is due the net amount of $31,925.64 minus the 15 $4,196.48 in EAJA fees that were previously awarded—$27,729.16. See Gisbrecht at 796. 16 CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion, the Commissioner’s Response, the 18 19 exhibits and declarations attached thereto, and the remainder of the record, the Court ORDERS 20 as follows: 21 1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 406(b) is GRANTED in 22 part. Plaintiff’s attorney, Amy Gilbrough, is awarded reasonable fees in the sum of 23 $27,729.16. 24 25 2) This net payment of fees comprises 15% of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits minus the 26 previously awarded EAJA fees; 27 28 3) Any payment of fees is from the claimant’s withheld past-due benefits. If the 1 2 Commissioner has not withheld past-due benefits sufficient to satisfy this order and 3 Plaintiff’s attorney reports she is unable to collect the fee from the claimant, the 4 Commissioner will satisfy this order via the procedures in the Program Operation 5 Manual System (POMS) GN 03920.055.C. 6

7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 DATED this 27th day of February, 2024. 11 12 A 13 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28