Omayra Acosta v. Commissioner Social Security
22-1454
| 3rd Cir. | May 20, 2022Background
- Acosta sued for Social Security disability benefits; district court entered judgment for her in 2020 after exhausting administrative remedies.
- On remand the SSA awarded $97,213 in past-due benefits; SSA withheld 25% ($24,303.25), $6,000 of which went to Acosta's administrative representative, leaving $18,303.25 for counsel.
- Acosta's attorney, Robert Savoy, moved for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), submitted a fee agreement and reported 17.1 hours of work; he requested $18,303.25 (within the 25% cap).
- Acosta did not file a response in the district court; the Commissioner neither supported nor opposed the fee request.
- The district court awarded $18,303.25 under § 406(b), offset by a prior EAJA award of $3,556.97, leaving $14,746.28 payable from Acosta's recovery.
- Acosta appealed pro se, suggesting for the first time that the § 406(b) fee was unreasonable; Savoy moved for summary affirmance.
Issues
| Issue | Acosta's Argument | Savoy/Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of § 406(b) fee | Fee is unreasonable given the work performed | Fee is within the 25% cap, supported by fee agreement and successful result | Affirmed: fee was reasonable; no abuse of discretion |
| Consideration of new argument on appeal | Court should find fee unreasonable (argument first raised on appeal) | Argument forfeited by not raising below | Court declined to consider newly raised argument but ruled even if considered, no abuse of discretion |
| EAJA offset of § 406(b) award | (No objection below) | EAJA award properly offsets § 406(b) recovery | Affirmed: district court correctly offset EAJA award from § 406(b) fee |
Key Cases Cited
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002) (§ 406(b) reasonableness factors and primacy of fee agreements)
- Fields v. Kijakazi, 24 F.4th 845 (2d Cir. 2022) (abuse-of-discretion standard for § 406(b) fee awards)
- Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2011) (summary affirmance may rest on any record-supported basis)
- Simko v. U.S. Steel Corp., 992 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2021) (arguments raised for the first time on appeal generally not considered)