Magno v. Commissioner of Social Security
1:21-cv-01863-KAM
| E.D.N.Y | Oct 25, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Megan Magno (on behalf of Nicholas Capello, II) obtained a sentence-four remand of an adverse Social Security benefits decision and moved for attorney’s fees.
- Counsel sought EAJA fees of $7,758.65 (plus $17.58 expenses and $402 costs) and §406(b) contingency fees of $15,446.25 (25% of past-due benefits).
- Court found Plaintiff is a "prevailing party" under a sentence-four remand and the Government did not show its position was substantially justified.
- EAJA request was within applicable statutory hourly caps (adjusted for cost-of-living); the court awarded $7,758.65 under EAJA (to counsel if assigned) plus the agreed expenses and costs.
- For §406(b), counsel reported 32.4 attorney hours and 6.1 paralegal hours (de facto attorney rate ≈ $457.91); no fraud or overreaching appeared and the Commissioner did not object.
- The court approved the §406(b) award of $15,446.25 to be paid from past-due benefits and ordered counsel to refund the EAJA award to the plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff is a "prevailing party" for EAJA | Sentence-four remand makes plaintiff prevailing | No meaningful dispute raised | Court: Yes — remand qualifies as prevailing party (Shalala) |
| Whether the Government's position was "substantially justified" | Government not substantially justified | Government did not meet its burden to show substantial justification | Court: Government failed to show substantial justification |
| Whether EAJA fees requested are reasonable | Requested $7,758.65 consistent with statutory caps and COLA adjustments | No objection from Commissioner | Court: Awarded $7,758.65 plus $17.58 expenses and $402 costs |
| Whether §406(b) contingency fee (25%) is reasonable/windfall | 25% fee per contingency agreement; counsel provided hours, experience, risk justifying fee | Commissioner did not object | Court: Approved $15,446.25 under §406(b); counsel must refund EAJA amount to plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993) (sentence-four remand creates prevailing party status for EAJA purposes)
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002) (§406(b) fees are subject to court review and counsel must refund overlapping EAJA award)
- Healey v. Leavitt, 485 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007) (government bears burden to show its litigation position was substantially justified)
- Wells v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 367 (2d Cir. 1990) (factors for assessing §406(b) fees, including windfall analysis)
- Fields v. Kijakazi, 24 F.4th 845 (2d Cir. 2022) (factors to determine whether §406(b) award constitutes a windfall to counsel)
- Edwards ex rel. Edwards v. Barnhart, 238 F. Supp. 2d 645 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (district-court application of prevailing-party concepts in Social Security remands)