357 F. Supp. 3d 653
N.D. Ohio2019Background
- Plaintiffs were awarded retroactive Title II disability benefits and Title XVI SSI; they authorized SSA to pay their attorneys from the Title II award.
- SSA pays attorney fees from retroactive Title II checks and then reduces ongoing Title II monthly benefits to recoup those fees.
- Because Title II monthly benefits factor into the SSI "Windfall Offset Calculation," a reduction in Title II income after fee payment should trigger a second recalculation (the "Subtraction Recalculation") that can increase monthly SSI and produce past-due SSI.
- Plaintiffs allege SSA failed to perform the Subtraction Recalculation for many claimants (SSA’s draft data identified substantial Category I class members).
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment seeking an order requiring SSA to perform the Subtraction Recalculation and pay past-due benefits within 90 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SSA was legally required to perform the Subtraction Recalculation and thereby pay past-due SSI | SSA must perform the Subtraction Recalculation when Title II is reduced for attorney fees; failure created underpayments | SSA did not meaningfully dispute legal duty but tried to contest scope; argued relief not appropriate absent proof of systemic error | Court: SSA conceded it failed to perform recalculation for Category I; summary judgment for Plaintiffs; SSA must perform recalculation and pay past-due benefits within 90 days |
| Whether Plaintiffs must prove a systemic pattern/practice to obtain relief | Not required here because relief addresses past errors admitted by SSA | Argued Unan requires proof of ongoing systemic error for prospective relief | Court: Unan inapplicable; Plaintiffs seek remedy for past failures and SSA admitted pervasive omission, so no systemic-proof requirement |
| Whether class counsel may recover fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) for this class action | § 406(b) applies; fees may be awarded based on judgment that entitles claimants to past-due benefits "by reason of" the judgment | SSA argued § 406(b) inapplicable because (a) relief merely directs SSA to pay benefits claimants were already entitled to, (b) plaintiffs are "beneficiaries" not "claimants," and (c) it would force duplicate fee payments | Court: Counsel are eligible for § 406(b) fees; plaintiffs are "claimants" for past-due benefits; additional benefits are distinct awards; fee amount to be determined later |
| Whether EAJA governs attorney-fee recovery instead of or in addition to § 406(b) | Counsel may also be eligible for EAJA fees; court declined to decide now | SSA urged EAJA controls in class actions for Social Security cases | Court: Did not decide EAJA eligibility now; § 406(b) availability recognized and EAJA motion may be brought later |
Key Cases Cited
- Unan v. Lyon, 853 F.3d 279 (6th Cir.) (district court’s grant of summary judgment reversed where factual dispute remained about ongoing systemic error)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S.) (summary judgment standards and drawing inferences for nonmovant)
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (U.S.) (rules on awarding § 406(b) fees and relation to EAJA fees)
- Greenberg v. Colvin, 63 F. Supp. 3d 37 (D.D.C.) (held § 406(b) fees available to class counsel in Windfall Offset challenge)