Richard M. v. Bisignano
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:19-cv-00827
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Richard M. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Menendez granted plaintiff's attorney's motion for $19,846.75 in fees under the Social Security Act for successful federal court representation, while also ordering counsel to refund a previously awarded $2,990.29 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees back to the plaintiff.
Social Security disability claimants and their attorneys who obtain fee awards in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), particularly those who also received fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act for the same representation.
What happened
In Richard M. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, a Social Security disability claimant's attorney asked the court to approve a fee of $19,846.75 — equal to 25 percent of the past-due benefits the plaintiff won after his case was sent back to the Social Security Administration for reconsideration. The case had already resulted in a smaller attorney's fee award of $2,990.29 under a separate federal law called the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which allows fee awards against the government in certain cases.
The court reviewed whether the requested fee was reasonable under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), the federal law governing attorney's fees in Social Security cases for work done in federal court. It found the fee appropriate because: the representation was successful (the client received disability benefits); the amount matched the contingency fee agreement the client had signed; and the resulting effective hourly rate of $689.12 was reasonable given that the attorney risked receiving nothing if the case was lost. The government did not object to the fee.
Judge Menendez granted the motion in full, ordering the government to pay $19,846.75 directly to the plaintiff's attorney within 30 days. Because an attorney cannot keep fee awards under both EAJA and § 406(b) for the same work, the court also ordered that once counsel receives the larger § 406(b) payment, counsel must refund the smaller $2,990.29 EAJA fee directly to the plaintiff.
The detailed version
In Richard M. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security, No. 19-cv-827 (KMM), United States District Judge Katherine Menendez granted plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), awarding $19,846.75 to plaintiff's counsel for work performed before the district court in a successful Social Security disability appeal.
Background
The court had previously remanded the case to the Social Security Administration, and on remand the plaintiff was awarded $116,187 in past-due disability benefits. An earlier fee award of $2,990.29 had been made 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 civil cases. Separately, plaintiff's counsel had already received $9,200 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(a) for work performed before the agency (as opposed to before the court). Counsel now sought an additional $19,846.75 under § 406(b) — representing 25 percent of the total past-due benefits — for the federal court work.
Legal Framework
Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), a court may award a 'reasonable fee' to a claimant's successful attorney for work before the court, capped at 25 percent of the claimant's past-due benefits. The Supreme Court's decision in Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002), requires the court to independently assess reasonableness even when counsel and client have a contingency agreement. The Supreme Court's decision in Culbertson v. Berryhill, 586 U.S. 53 (2019), clarified that the 25 percent cap in § 406(b) applies only to fees for court work, not in the aggregate with fees for agency work under § 406(a) — meaning the combined $29,046.75 (§ 406(a) plus § 406(b)) would not violate the statutory cap.
Reasonableness Analysis
The court found the requested fee reasonable on three grounds: (1) the representation was successful, yielding a favorable judgment in the form of past-due disability benefits; (2) the requested amount matched the contingency fee agreement between plaintiff and counsel, and such agreements are the most common arrangement in Social Security cases; and (3) the effective hourly rate of $689.12 — derived from the hours counsel spent on the case — was not so disproportionate as to require a reduction, particularly given the contingency risk of no compensation if the case failed.
EAJA Offset Requirement
Because an attorney may not retain fee awards under both EAJA and § 406(b) for the same work, the court ordered that upon receiving the § 406(b) award, counsel must refund the smaller EAJA award of $2,990.29 to the plaintiff. This is consistent with the requirement established in Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796.
Disposition
The motion was granted in full. The government was ordered to pay $19,846.75 directly to plaintiff's counsel within 30 days, and counsel was ordered to refund $2,990.29 to the plaintiff upon receipt.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.