Whipple v. Commissioner of Social Security, 6:23-cv-06290

Plaintiff Kevin W. filed a case seeking review of the Commissioner's denial of his Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claim.
The District Court reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, after the parties stipulated to remand.
Plaintiff’s counsel had already received $7,240.00 in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
The Commissioner later found in Plaintiff's favor and withheld $36,988.25 from past-due benefits to cover attorneys’ fees.
Plaintiff’s counsel filed a timely motion under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), seeking $32,100.00 in fees, pledging to refund the EAJA fee to Plaintiff.
The Commissioner did not oppose or support the fee request.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of § 406(b) fee application	Application filed within 14 days of benefits award notice	No opposition	Motion is timely
Reasonableness of requested § 406(b) attorneys’ fees	Fee is within 25% cap; no fraud; no windfall	No opposition	Fee is reasonable; award granted
Necessity to refund previously awarded EAJA fee under § 406(b)	Will refund EAJA fee if § 406(b) fee granted	No opposition	EAJA fee refund to Plaintiff required
Whether effective hourly rate constitutes a windfall	Rate aligns with prevailing awards in similar cases	No opposition	No windfall; rate approved

Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (U.S. 2002) (Court review required for contingency fee agreements under § 406(b), capped at 25%, and only allows reasonable fees)
Wells v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 367 (2d Cir. 1990) (Court must ensure no fraud, overreaching, or windfall in fee agreements)