Moody v. Commissioner of Social Security
6:14-cv-01472
M.D. Fla.Sep 14, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Norma E. Moody obtained a district-court judgment reversing and remanding the Commissioner’s denial of benefits; on remand she was awarded $71,861 in past-due benefits.
- Plaintiff’s contingency fee agreement capped attorney’s fees at 25% of past-due benefits.
- The Social Security Administration withheld fees from the award; counsel previously received $6,138 under the EAJA.
- Counsel filed an uncontested § 406(b) motion seeking $11,965.25 (the withheld amount minus a prior § 406(a) payment of $6,000 and accounting for the EAJA refund).
- The Magistrate Judge recommends granting § 406(b) fees of $11,965.25 to be paid from past-due benefits and ordering counsel to refund the $6,138 EAJA award to the claimant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 406(b) fees totaling $11,965.25 are appropriate | Counsel requests $11,965.25 from withheld past-due benefits to compensate federal-court work | Commissioner does not object to the requested § 406(b) amount | Recommended grant: § 406(b) fees of $11,965.25 to be paid from withheld benefits |
| Whether total attorney fees (§§ 406(a)+406(b)) may exceed 25% of past-due benefits | Counsel accounts for prior § 406(a) fees and stays within 25% cap | Commissioner relies on statutory cap and precedent limiting aggregate fees | Court applies 25% cap; total fees cannot exceed 25% ($17,965.25) |
| Whether counsel must refund EAJA fees when obtaining § 406(b) fees | Counsel proposes to refund the $6,138 EAJA award to client upon receipt of § 406(b) funds | Commissioner has no objection; EAJA savings provision applies | Recommended: counsel must promptly refund the $6,138 EAJA award to the claimant |
| Whether requested fee is reasonable under Gisbrecht factors | Counsel implicitly argues fee is reasonable given contingency agreement and results | No objection; court must still assess reasonableness and avoid windfall or delay tactics | Recommended fee approved as reasonable within 25% cap; no reduction recommended |
Key Cases Cited
- Wood v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 861 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2017) (aggregating §§ 406(a) and 406(b) fees limited to 25% of past-due benefits)
- Dawson v. Finch, 425 F.2d 1192 (5th Cir. 1970) (25% aggregate cap on attorney fees under § 406)
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002) (§ 406(b) fees must be reasonable within 25% cap; court may reduce for windfall, delay, or disproportionate time)
- Jackson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 601 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2010) (EAJA savings provision requires refund of EAJA award when § 406(b) fees are recovered)