Hampton v. Kijakazi
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:22-cv-00670
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Hampton v. Kijakazi, Judge Magnuson granted Plaintiff's attorney's fees motion under the Social Security Act, awarding counsel $10,222.68 from the client's past-due disability benefits, while also requiring counsel to refund the client a previously awarded $3,192 in fees under a separate federal fee statute.
Attorneys representing Social Security disability claimants in federal court, and their clients, who may be entitled to attorney's fees from past-due benefits awards — and who must receive a refund when their attorney also collected fees under a separate federal fee statute for the same work.
What happened
In Hampton v. Kijakazi, Aaron H. successfully obtained past-due Social Security disability benefits — $63,184 in Title II benefits and $6,506.75 in Title XVI benefits — after years of administrative hearings and federal court litigation. His attorney then filed a motion asking the court to approve attorney's fees totaling $10,222.68, which represents 25 percent of the combined past-due benefits minus $7,200 already paid for the attorney's administrative work before the Social Security Administration. The government did not oppose the request.
Federal law allows a Social Security claimant's attorney to receive up to 25 percent of a client's past-due benefits as a fee, but the court must independently confirm that the amount is reasonable. The court found that the attorney worked 14.6 hours on the case — preparing for three administrative hearings and handling the federal court case — and that the resulting effective hourly rate of approximately $700 was consistent with rates approved in similar disability cases in this district. The court found no reason to reduce the fee, noting the attorney had not caused delays or provided substandard representation.
Judge Magnuson granted the motion and ordered the government to pay $10,222.68 directly to Plaintiff's counsel. However, because the attorney had previously received $3,192 under a different fee law called the Equal Access to Justice Act for some of the same work, the court also ordered the attorney to refund that $3,192 directly to the client — consistent with the rule that an attorney cannot keep duplicate fee awards for the same work.
The detailed version
This case involves a motion for attorney's fees filed by counsel for Aaron H. (listed as the plaintiff in the case caption as 'Hampton v. Kijakazi,' though the current defendant is Commissioner Frank Bisignano, automatically substituted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d)) following a successful Social Security disability benefits claim.
Statutory Framework
The fee motion was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), which permits a court to award an attorney representing a Social Security claimant a fee of up to 25 percent of the claimant's past-due benefits, provided the court finds the fee reasonable. This is distinct from fees awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, which allows prevailing parties to recover fees from the government in certain federal proceedings.
Fee Calculation
The plaintiff was awarded $63,184 in past-due Title II (Social Security Disability Insurance) benefits and $6,506.75 in past-due Title XVI (Supplemental Security Income) benefits. Twenty-five percent of the Title II award equals $15,796, but $7,200 had already been paid to counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 406(a) for administrative work before the Social Security Administration, leaving $8,596. Twenty-five percent of the Title XVI award equals $1,626.68. Combined, counsel sought $10,222.68.
Reasonableness Determination
The court applied the Supreme Court's standard from Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 808 (2002), which directs courts to review § 406(b) fee requests for reasonableness rather than treating the statutory 25 percent cap as automatically appropriate. The court found: (1) counsel worked 14.6 hours, a reasonable amount for the scope of the representation (three administrative hearings plus federal district court litigation); (2) the effective hourly rate of approximately $700 was within the range approved in similar cases in the District of Minnesota, citing Smith v. Kijakazi, Civ. No. 19-1571, 2023 WL 3580817 (D. Minn. May 22, 2023), which approved a $900 hourly rate; and (3) no basis existed to reduce the fee for delay or substandard representation.
EAJA Refund Requirement
The court had previously awarded counsel $3,192 under the EAJA on November 30, 2022. Under established precedent, attorneys may receive fees under both the EAJA and § 406(b) for the same work, but must refund the smaller of the two awards to the client to prevent double recovery. The court cited Theodoros K. v. Kijakazi, Civ. No. 20-2228, 2023 WL 4621896 (D. Minn. July 19, 2023). Accordingly, counsel was ordered to refund the $3,192 EAJA award to the plaintiff.
Disposition
Judge Paul A. Magnuson granted the motion, ordered the government to pay $10,222.68 directly to plaintiff's counsel, and ordered counsel to refund $3,192 to the plaintiff.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.