Madeline W. v. Frank Bisignano

Madeline W. · United States District Court for the Southern District of California · May 7, 2025 · No. 18-cv-02678-AJB-BLM

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California grants counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) following a remand and subsequent award of retroactive Supplemental Security Income benefits. The court approves $14,000 in fees and orders counsel to refund the previously awarded $2,300 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees to the plaintiff.

Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Writing for the Court
Anthony J. Battaglia
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Decision date
May 7, 2025
Docket number
18-cv-02678-AJB-BLM
Procedural posture
Plaintiff's counsel moved under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) for approval of $14,000 in attorney's fees after the court remanded Plaintiff's Social Security claim to the agency and Plaintiff received past-due SSI benefits.
Standard of review
The court must determine whether the requested fee is reasonable under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), beginning with the lawful contingent-fee agreement and considering the character of the representation and the results achieved, while reducing the award for substandard performance, delay, or benefits disproportionate to the time spent.
Precedential value
Unknown; district court order with no reported citation
Disposition
approved

Topics

attorney feesjudicial review of agency actionadministrative lawremediescivil procedure

Practice areas

Social Securityadministrative lawattorney feescivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the requested $14,000 attorney-fee award was reasonable under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).
  2. Whether the § 406(b) award had to be offset by the $2,300 previously awarded under the EAJA.

Holdings

  1. The requested $14,000 fee was reasonable and did not exceed the applicable 25 percent cap for the representation.
  2. Counsel must refund Plaintiff the $2,300 previously awarded under the EAJA.

Key quotations

Within the 25 percent boundary, . . . the attorney for the successful claimant must show that the fee sought is reasonable for the services rendered. (at 2)
a district court charged with determining a reasonable fee award under § 406(b)(1)(A) must respect ‘the primacy of lawful attorney-client fee agreements,’ . . . ‘looking first to the contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for reasonableness.’ (at 2)
Accordingly, based on the character of counsel’s representation and the favorable results achieved, the Court finds the requested fees in the amount of $14,000.00 reasonable. (at 3)

Factual background

Plaintiff retained Denise Bourgeois Haley and the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing under a contingency-fee agreement to represent her in connection with her SSI claim and judicial review. The district court remanded the case to the SSA under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and the SSA subsequently awarded approximately $56,434.38 in retroactive SSI benefits. Counsel sought $14,000 for 13.6 hours of work and agreed to refund the previously awarded $2,300 in EAJA fees.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed an action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's denial of supplemental security income. After screening, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint; following submission of the administrative record, the parties jointly moved for a sentence-four remand, which the court granted. The court later awarded $2,300 in EAJA fees. After remand, the SSA awarded Plaintiff approximately $56,434.38 in retroactive SSI benefits, and counsel sought $14,000 under § 406(b), agreeing to refund the EAJA award.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…