Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 1:21-cv-00034

Plaintiff Anthony J. prevailed in a federal court action challenging a Social Security Administration (SSA) benefits determination.
Plaintiff's counsel moved for an attorney fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A), seeking 25% of the past-due benefits recovered.
Plaintiff had a contingency fee agreement with his counsel that allowed up to 25% of past-due benefits as attorney’s fees for court representation.
Plaintiff was awarded $91,915.72 in past-due benefits; counsel requested a fee of $22,978.93 (25%).
Defendant Commissioner did not oppose the attorney’s fee motion.
The court previously awarded $5,429.11 in attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), subject to refund if a higher § 406(b) award was granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reasonableness of § 406(b) fee request	Fee is within 25% limit and reasonable given representation and results	No opposition filed	Granted: Fee request reasonable and not a windfall
Refund of EAJA fee	No dispute; agrees to refund if required	No opposition filed	Granted: Must refund $5,429.11 EAJA fee to Plaintiff
Enforceability of contingency agreement	Agreement comports with statutory and case law limits	No opposition filed	Upheld: Agreement is valid under § 406(b)
Reasonableness in light of hours worked and rates	High hourly rate justified by results and precedents	No opposition filed	Approved: Rate reasonable based on precedent, results, and incentive policy

Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002) (court must assess the reasonableness of contingency fee agreements within statutory limits in Social Security cases)
Wells v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 367 (2d Cir. 1990) (factors for determining reasonableness of § 406(b) fees, including risk, results, and potential for windfall)
Fields v. Kijakazi, 24 F.4th 845 (2d Cir. 2022) (district court's analysis of contingency fees in Social Security cases begins with the parties' fee agreement)