(SS) Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security
2:15-cv-01954
E.D. Cal.Sep 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Mary Frances Anderson sought judicial review after the Commissioner denied her Title II disability insurance benefits; the court granted Anderson summary judgment and remanded with instructions to award benefits.
- On remand Anderson received $54,884.00 in past-due (retroactive) benefits.
- Counsel had a contingent-fee agreement capping fees at 25% of past-due benefits.
- Counsel previously received $8,746.90 in EAJA fees for this litigation.
- Counsel requested $4,974.60 (later corrected to $4,974.10) under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), representing 25% of past-due benefits ($13,721.00) less the EAJA award, for 73.8 hours of work.
- The Commissioner did not oppose the § 406(b) fee motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the requested § 406(b) fee is reasonable | Anderson's counsel argued the contingent-fee agreement yielded a $4,974.10 fee, reasonable given results, hours, and risk assumed | Berryhill did not oppose the request | Court held the corrected $4,974.10 is reasonable and awarded it under § 406(b) |
| Whether any reduction is warranted due to counsel performance or delay | Counsel asserted adequate, non-dilatory representation; submitted detailed billing | No opposing evidence or argument presented | Court found no substandard performance or dilatory conduct; no reduction needed |
| Whether the statutory 25% ceiling controls the award | Counsel relied on the contingent agreement falling within the 25% cap | Commissioner did not contest amount relative to cap | Court applied § 406(b) framework, respected contingent fee, and tested for reasonableness within 25% boundary |
| Interaction of § 406(b) award with prior EAJA fee award | Counsel sought offset (reduce § 406(b) by EAJA award already paid) | Commissioner did not contest offset | Court awarded $4,974.10 (25% of past-due less the $8,746.90 EAJA fee already awarded) |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2009) (district courts must respect contingent-fee agreements and test § 406(b) fees for reasonableness)
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002) (§ 406(b) fees are paid from past-due benefits and courts must ensure reasonableness within the 25% ceiling)
- Parrish v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 698 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2012) (articulating § 406(b) goals to protect claimants from excessive fees while ensuring counsel are compensated)