Fensterman v. O'Malley, 0:22-cv-02862

Plaintiff's counsel represented the plaintiff in a Social Security case, seeking back benefits via federal court litigation.
The court previously partially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, remanding the case to the Social Security Administration (SSA).
SSA awarded the full amount of back benefits sought by the plaintiff, withholding 25% ($26,378.68) for potential attorneys' fees.
The parties previously stipulated to $8,500 in attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
Plaintiff's counsel now seeks authorization for a net attorney fee of $17,878.68 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), reflecting the contingency fee minus the already-paid EAJA fee.
The defendant (the Commissioner of Social Security) took no position on the request for fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reasonableness of fee under § 406(b)	Fee reflects contingency agreement (25%), is reasonable for outcome achieved	No opposition	Fee of $26,378.68 is reasonable based on results and precedent
Duplication of EAJA and § 406(b) fees	Counsel will refund the lower EAJA fee as required	No opposition	Attorney must refund $8,500 EAJA fee, so net recovery is $17,878.68
Effective hourly rate	$578.48/hr is reasonable and within district norms	No opposition	Court finds hourly rate is reasonable and within district norms
Compliance with agency procedures	Requests payment issued per SSA policy	No opposition	Payment of $17,878.68 to be issued to counsel per SSA policy

Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002) (sets standard for assessing reasonableness of contingency fee agreements in Social Security cases)
Kertz v. Colvin, 125 F.4th 1218 (8th Cir. 2025) (emphasizes contingency agreement as anchor in § 406(b) fee analysis)