Peteroy v. Saul
1:21-cv-03370-FB
| E.D.N.Y | Jul 19, 2023Background
- Plaintiff David Peteroy secured a district-court remand and a directive that the SSA find him disabled and award past-due benefits.
- SSA issued a Notice of Award dated June 20, 2023, withholding $52,559.25 (25% of retroactive benefits) for potential attorney fees.
- Counsel Christopher J. Bowes filed a 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) fee petition on July 9, 2023 and had previously received a $7,350 EAJA award.
- Bowes billed approximately 60.1 hours at the district-court level, making the requested fee a de facto $874.53/hour.
- The Court considered (1) timeliness under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B) and Sinkler principles and (2) reasonableness under § 406(b) and Second Circuit standards, then granted the requested fee.
- The Court ordered the Commissioner to pay $52,559.25 to Bowes and required Bowes to refund the $7,350 EAJA award to Peteroy upon receipt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of § 406(b) motion | Bowes filed within the allowable period after counsel received the Notice of Award | No timely filing objection; SSA mailed notice only to claimant/administrative counsel | Motion deemed timely; courts may enlarge the 14-day period where counsel received notice later (citing Sinkler) |
| Reasonableness of fee (25% request) | $52,559.25 (25% of retroactive benefits) reasonable given 60.1 hours, counsel's skill, and procedural success | No evidence of fraud or overreach; Commissioner did not oppose reasonableness | Fee granted; not a windfall—de facto $874.53/hr falls within ranges approved by courts and hours were reasonable |
| EAJA offset/refund | Bowes must refund the smaller EAJA award to the claimant if § 406(b) award is larger | N/A (governed by precedent) | Court ordered Bowes to remit the $7,350 EAJA award to Peteroy upon receiving § 406(b) funds |
Key Cases Cited
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002) (contingency fees up to 25% of past-due benefits are permitted but must be "reasonable;" counsel must refund overlapping EAJA award)
- Sinkler v. Commissioner of Social Security, 932 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2019) (district courts may enlarge the § 406(b) filing period where circumstances warrant)
- Wells v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 367 (2d Cir. 1990) (framework for assessing § 406(b) reasonableness: within 25%, no fraud/overreach, not a windfall)
- Fields v. Kijakazi, 24 F.4th 845 (2d Cir. 2022) (additional non-exhaustive factors for assessing potential windfalls and fee reasonableness)
- Baron v. Astrue, 311 F. Supp. 3d 633 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (collecting cases approving high de facto hourly rates for § 406(b) awards)
- Patterson v. Apfel, 99 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (approving 40+ hours as reasonable for federal Social Security litigation)