Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:14-cv-00355
M.D. Fla.Jul 17, 2017Background
- Anderson applied for Title II disability benefits (Jan 26, 2011) and retained counsel in March 2011; initial and reconsideration denials followed and an ALJ issued an unfavorable decision.
- This Court granted Commissioner’s unopposed Sentence Six remand because the ALJ had relied on another claimant’s records; after remand the ALJ found Anderson disabled and awarded $75,282 in past‑due benefits.
- Counsel’s contingent fee agreement allowed up to 25% of retroactive benefits; counsel sought the full statutory 25% ($18,820.50), but $6,000 had already been withheld by SSA, leaving a net request of $12,820.50 for court approval.
- The Commissioner objected, arguing the requested fee would be excessive given the time spent and circumstances of the case.
- The Court applied the Supreme Court’s Gisbrecht framework and related Eleventh Circuit practice factors (risk, fee compromise, attorney experience, case complexity, quality of work) and considered counsels’ reported 10.9 hours of federal‑court work.
- The Court found an award of $4,905 reasonable under § 406(b), allowed counsel to keep the $6,000 already withheld plus $4,905, and ordered counsel to refund $7,915.50 to Anderson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 25% §406(b) fee (net $12,820.50) is reasonable | Contingent‑fee agreement governs; counsel assumed risk and achieved a favorable result, so full statutory fee is reasonable | Fee is excessive relative to time spent; favorable result alone doesn’t justify a windfall; reduce fee | Court reduced fee: awarded $4,905 under §406(b), required refund of $7,915.50 |
Key Cases Cited
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002) (contingent‑fee agreements control §406(b) awards but courts must independently ensure reasonableness)
- Jeter v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2010) (hourly rates and lodestar are relevant factors though not exclusive under Gisbrecht)
- Lasley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 771 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2014) (effective hourly rate may be considered when assessing §406(b) reasonableness)
- Davis v. Astrue, 533 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (M.D. Fla. 2007) (multipliers up to 2.5 times a noncontingent hourly rate can adequately compensate contingency risk)