Summary
This Eighth Circuit opinion reviews a district court's decision to reduce an attorney's fee award in a Social Security disability case. Applying the Supreme Court's Gisbrecht standard, the appellate court affirmed the reduction of the 25% contingent fee, finding that the full amount would constitute an unearned windfall given the limited hours expended and the lack of substantive litigation before the federal court. The court held that the district court properly considered the character of the representation and results achieved as permissible factors under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by reducing the attorney‑fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A) contrary to Gisbrecht v. Barnhart.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion; its reduction of the fee award was proper.
Key quotations
“§ 406(b) does not displace contingent‑fee agreements as the primary means by which fees are set for successfully representing Social Security benefits claimants in court. Rather, § 406(b) calls for court review of such arrangements as an independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results in particular cases.”
“The award set by the contingency agreement must be the anchor of the court’s reasonableness analysis under § 406(b).”
Factual background
Kertz claimed disability beginning March 16, 2018. He entered a 25 % contingent‑fee agreement with attorney Nicholas Coleman. The district court awarded $10,667.50 of the $24,087.25 fee sought, finding the full 25 % unreasonable based on the limited hours Coleman spent and the resulting "windfall".
Procedural history
Kertz applied for SSDI benefits and was denied. An ALJ and the SSA Appeals Council upheld the denial. Kertz filed a civil action in the Eastern District of Arkansas; the district court remanded, awarded attorney fees under the EAJA, and later reduced the contingent‑fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). Kertz appealed the fee reduction.