780 F.Supp.3d 709
W.D. Ky.2025Background
- Rodney Williams prevailed in a Social Security disability benefits lawsuit; the court remanded for further administrative proceedings, leading to an $87,138.00 past-due benefits award.
- Williams’ attorney, David Chermol, filed for attorney’s fees totaling $21,784.50, representing 25% of the benefits award per their contingency agreement.
- Neither Williams nor the Social Security Administration objected to the fee request.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended a reduced fee ($21,198.00), applying standard hourly rates, but Chermol objected.
- The key legal issue was whether the court could independently reduce an unopposed contingency fee request and, if so, whether the requested fee was reasonable under Sixth Circuit precedent.
- The court ultimately granted the full requested fee to Chermol, concluding no evidence rebutted the presumption of reasonableness for the contingent fee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court reduce an unopposed contingency fee request? | Court must grant unopposed fee requests absent objection, citing Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit cases. | (No opposition; no separate argument from defendant.) | Court has independent duty to scrutinize fee agreements for reasonableness, even without objections. |
| Is the requested $21,784.50 attorney fee reasonable under § 406(b)? | Fee is reasonable based on success, risk, and contingency arrangement; presented affidavits of local attorneys. | (No opposition; Commissioner did not object.) | Fee is presumed reasonable; no evidence rebuts this, as hours expended and complexity support the amount. |
| Applicability of the “windfall” analysis to the fee request. | Fee does not constitute a windfall given the complexity and effort involved, and it matches the contingency agreement. | (No opposition.) | Applying a two-step "windfall" analysis, the court found the fee not unreasonable despite exceeding twice the standard hourly rate. |
| Treatment of previously awarded EAJA fees in calculating final fee payment. | Proposed netting out the $6,000 EAJA fee from the § 406(b) award for simplicity. | (No opposition.) | Court approved the offset, granting the net difference to Chermol and directing the balance to Williams. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (Courts have discretion to reduce fee awards absent objection, but must provide individualized analysis.)
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (District courts must independently review and assess reasonableness of contingency fee agreements in Social Security cases.)
- In re Horenstein, 810 F.2d 73 (Sixth Circuit requires individualized analysis, not categorical reductions, for Social Security fee requests.)
- Hayes v. Secretary, 923 F.2d 418 (Established "windfall" two-step analysis for assessing reasonableness of contingency fees in Social Security cases.)
- Rodriguez v. Bowen, 865 F.2d 739 (Court should depart from the fee agreement only for improper conduct, ineffectiveness, or windfall. )