Taylor, Phillip v. Colvin, Carolyn, 3:15-cv-00720

Background

Plaintiff Phillip Taylor obtained a stipulated remand in his Social Security disability and SSI case; the district court reversed and remanded the Commissioner's denial.
The court previously awarded attorney Dana Duncan $5,800 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
On remand, the Commissioner awarded Taylor past-due benefits: $42,396 (DIB) and $50,445.73 (SSI).
Duncan sought a § 406(b) contingency fee of 25% of past-due benefits ($23,210.43) pursuant to his fee agreement.
The Commissioner did not oppose the requested § 406(b) fee, but the court reviewed the request for reasonableness and found deficiencies in Duncan’s submissions.
The court awarded a reduced § 406(b) fee equivalent to $250/hour totaling $6,575 and ordered Duncan to return the previously awarded EAJA fees to his client.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the requested § 406(b) contingency fee (25% of past-due benefits) is reasonable	Duncan sought 25% of past-due benefits based on his fee agreement and pointed to total time spent (including administrative work) to justify the fee/effective hourly rate	Commissioner did not oppose the request	Court denied the requested amount as unreasonable and awarded $6,575 (equivalent to $250/hour) for court-level work only
Whether hours spent in administrative proceedings may be used to justify § 406(b) reasonableness	Duncan argued the court could consider all hours at administrative and federal levels to calculate an equivalent hourly rate	Commissioner silent/non-oppositional	Court rejected considering administrative hours for § 406(b) reasonableness and required the attorney show equivalent hourly rate for court work only
Whether receiving EAJA fees justifies a larger § 406(b) award (or affects reasonableness)	Duncan suggested EAJA award lowers his effective fee burden and supports his requested rate	Commissioner did not object	Court held EAJA payment to the attorney does not justify a higher § 406(b) rate; EAJA must be returned to client if § 406(b) awarded
Whether attorney’s prior patterns and submission deficiencies affect award	Duncan relied on repeated form briefs and previous outcomes; sought to supplement with a reply	Commissioner did not oppose	Court found Duncan’s brief lacked sufficient analysis and ruled that repeated incorrect submissions justify limiting future awards to $250/hour until corrected

Key Cases Cited

(No officially reported decisions with reporter citations were used as key authorities in this order.)