Yueh v. Dudek

Yueh · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · August 6, 2025 · No. 23-cv-00824-AMO

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California partially granted and partially denied counsel’s motion for attorney fees under Section 406(b) of the Social Security Act. Although the claimant recovered $98,720.70 in past-due benefits after a stipulated remand, the court reduced the requested fee from $17,480 to $8,187.50 as reasonable in light of the 6.55 hours worked and the circumstances of the remand. Counsel was ordered to refund the previously awarded $1,541 EAJA fee to the claimant.

Holdings

  1. A contingent-fee agreement within the statutory 25 percent ceiling does not establish that the requested fee is reasonable; the court must independently assess the fee and may reduce it to prevent a windfall and maintain proportionality to the time spent and results achieved.
  2. When an attorney receives fees under both section 406(b) and the EAJA for the same Social Security representation, the attorney must refund the smaller fee to the claimant, subject to the claimant receiving the full past-due-benefits amount.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether counsel's requested $17,480 fee under section 206(b) of the Social Security Act was reasonable.
  2. Whether the section 406(b) fee award had to be offset by the $1,541 EAJA award previously paid.
  3. What amount of section 406(b) fees should be certified and what refund, if any, counsel owed to the claimant.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (17)

  • Russell v. Sullivan, 930 F.2d 1443, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991)(followed)
  • Sorensen v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001)(abrogated_on_other_grounds)
  • Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 793, 796, 805, 807-08 (2002)(followed)
  • Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1149-51, 1153 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc)(followed)
  • Matos v. Saul, No. 19-cv-02505-TSH, 2021 WL 1405467, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2021)(followed_by_analogy)
  • Khlopoff v. Saul, No. 18-cv-03149-TSH, 2020 WL 7043878, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2020)(followed_by_analogy)
  • McCullough v. Berryhill, No. 16-cv-00625-BLF, 2018 WL 6002324, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2018)(followed_by_analogy)
  • Harrell v. Berryhill, No. 16-cv-02428-TSH, 2018 WL 4616735, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2018)(followed_by_analogy)
  • Lopez v. Colvin, No. 14-cv-03395-JSC, 2017 WL 168060, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2017)(followed_by_analogy)
  • Palos v. Colvin, No. CV 15-04261-DTB, 2016 WL 5110243, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2016)(followed_by_analogy)

Showing top 10 of 17.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…