Christina M. Goodwin v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Christina M. Goodwin v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York · January 7, 2026 · No. 24-cv-1139 (NRM) (SIL)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) following remand of Christina M. Goodwin’s Social Security disability benefits claim and the subsequent award of past-due benefits. The court finds the requested fee of $51,932.25 timely, within the statutory 25 percent cap, and reasonable under the applicable contingency-fee and windfall-factor analysis. Counsel must refund the previously awarded $7,288.00 in EAJA fees to Plaintiff.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Writing for the Court
Nina R. Morrison
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Decision date
January 7, 2026
Docket number
24-cv-1139 (NRM) (SIL)
Procedural posture
Plaintiff sought review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits. After the parties jointly moved to remand and the agency issued a favorable Notice of Award, plaintiff moved under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) for authorization of contingent attorney's fees from past-due benefits.
Standard of review
The court reviewed the § 406(b) fee application for timeliness, compliance with the statutory 25-percent cap, and reasonableness under the contingent-fee agreement. Reasonableness required consideration of the character and results of the representation, attorney-caused delay, fraud or overreaching, and whether the requested fee constituted a windfall.
Precedential value
Nonprecedential district court memorandum and order
Parties
Christina M. Goodwin v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Disposition
other

Topics

attorney feesjudicial review of agency actionadministrative lawremediescivil procedure

Practice areas

Social Securityattorney's feesadministrative lawcivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) was timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B).
  2. Whether the requested § 406(b) fee complied with the statutory limit of 25 percent of past-due benefits.
  3. Whether the contingent fee of $51,932.25 was reasonable rather than a windfall.

Holdings

  1. The fee application was timely because counsel filed it within the applicable 14-day period after the Notice of Award.
  2. The requested fee complied with § 406(b) because it equaled, but did not exceed, 25 percent of plaintiff's past-due benefits, and counsel agreed to refund the EAJA fee.
  3. The requested $51,932.25 contingent fee was reasonable and did not constitute a windfall.

Key quotations

Section 406(b) permits contingency fee arrangements, provided they represent “a reasonable fee.”
Courts must consider more than the de facto hourly rate.
Counsel’s requested fee authorization is reasonable, and he is entitled to the fee authorization that he and Plaintiff outlined in their Agreement.

Factual background

Plaintiff retained Daniel A. Osborn under contingent-fee agreements providing for up to 25 percent of past-due benefits obtained through federal-court proceedings. Counsel represented plaintiff through two federal appeals that resulted in remands to the Social Security Administration, after which the agency awarded $207,729 in past-due benefits. The agency withheld $51,932.25, exactly 25 percent of the past-due benefits, and counsel sought authorization to receive that amount while agreeing to refund the $7,288 previously awarded under the EAJA.

Procedural history

Plaintiff previously obtained a remand to the Social Security Administration in an earlier federal action. After the agency again denied benefits, plaintiff filed this action on February 2, 2024. The parties jointly moved to remand, the court granted an EAJA fee award, and the agency issued a Notice of Award on November 24, 2025, reflecting $207,729 in past-due benefits and $51,932.25 withheld for attorney's fees. Plaintiff then moved for § 406(b) fees, which the court granted.

Remand instructions

The Commissioner was directed to release $51,932.25 from the amount withheld from plaintiff's past-due benefits to counsel in accordance with agency policy. Counsel was directed to promptly refund $7,288.00 to plaintiff, representing the previously received EAJA fee. The case remained closed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…