Smith v. Astrue
214 F. Supp. 3d 14
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Smith obtained a fully favorable SSD/SSI determination and now seeks 406(b) fees equal to 25% of past-due benefits.
- The requested 406(b) amount is $24,811.75; government does not oppose.
- An EAJA award of $8,050 previously awarded must be deducted from the 406(b) fee, yielding $16,761.75.
- Counsel spent 55 hours on the federal-file portion and over 200 hours overall; normal rate is $450/hour.
- Court analyzes reasonableness under factors: quality of representation, delay, risk of loss, case difficulty, and time spent relative to compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the 25% contingency fee reasonable under § 406(b)? | Smith’s contingent fee aligns with the statutory cap and rewarded substantial success. | No opposition to the fee amount given the cap and the results. | Yes; 25% is reasonable and within statutory limit. |
| Should the EAJA award be deducted from the 406(b) fee? | Deduction is appropriate to prevent duplicative compensation. | Agree deduction is proper. | Yes; EAJA amount deducted from 406(b) award. |
| Is the fee justified by the time expended and counsel's rate? | Hours billed are substantial and reflect counsel’s expertise; rate is reasonable. | Rate closely matches counsel’s usual hourly rate; time spent supports compensation. | Yes; hourly rate and hours are reasonable in context. |
| Did the attorney delay proceedings to increase fees? | Counsel filed motions promptly following remand and award notices. | No delay attributable to counsel. | No improper delay found. |
| Was the case sufficiently difficult and risky to warrant a contingent fee? | Claimant faced multiple prior denials; success depended on counsel. | Not opposed; risk considerations support contingency due to prior denials. | Yes; the case was difficult and involved risk of loss. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (U.S. 2002) (fee agreements controlled; court reviews for reasonableness)
- Buljina v. Astrue, 828 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. 2011) (factors for reasonable contingent fees; time vs. compensation)
- Jeter v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 371 (5th Cir. 2010) (risk, expertise, case difficulty in evaluating fees)
- Lasley v. Comm’r of Social Security, 771 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2014) (no delay by attorney; proper timing matters)
- Coppett v. Barnhart, 242 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (S.D. Ga. 2002) (risk and duration affecting reasonableness of fee)