(SS) Pratt v. Commissioner of Social Security, 2:22-cv-02152

Plaintiff Daniel Joseph Pratt sought judicial review after the Social Security Commissioner denied his disability benefits.
The case was remanded following a stipulation between the parties, resulting in an award of approximately $196,000 in past-due benefits to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s attorney requested $39,300 in attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), less than 25% of awarded past-due benefits, reflecting a contingent-fee arrangement.
The Commissioner did not oppose the requested fees but argued for a larger offset for EAJA fees.
The court reviewed the reasonableness of the requested fee, considering attorney hours, effective hourly rate, and the complexity of the underlying litigation.
The court also addressed the offset for previously awarded EAJA fees and whether additional fees could be sought in the reply brief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reasonableness of § 406(b) Fee	Fee is reasonable, less than 25% of benefits, justified by time/litigation	Effective hourly rate high, hours excessive	Fee reasonable given case record, hours, risk
Inclusion of Prior EAJA Fees in Offset	Only $15,000 EAJA to be offset	Both $15,000 and $1,101.12 EAJA must offset	All EAJA awards ($16,101.12) must be offset
Amending Fee Request via Reply Brief	Sought to amend for more fees in reply	Opposed as improper in reply brief	Amendment request denied
Effective Hourly Rate Calculation	Hours and rate reasonable	Should use more hours, lowers rate	Court finds hours reasonable, rate aligns with local precedent

Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (Supreme Court clarified that § 406(b) permits contingent-fee arrangements but requires review for reasonableness)
Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. discussed standards for reasonableness of social security fee requests under § 406(b))
Parrish v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 698 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. held all EAJA awards must be offset against § 406(b) fee awards)