Brown v. Astrue, No. 3:2010cv01119 - Document 26 (D. Or. 2012)

Court Description: OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (doc. 23 ) is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff's counsel is to be awarded $9,576, less the EAJA attorney fee of $7,490, for a net award of $2,086 to be paid from Plaintiffs past-due benefits. See 4-page opinion & order attached. Signed on 5/9/2012 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION RAINEE J. BROWN, Civil No. 10-CV-1119-HZ Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Laurie B. Mapes 33465 SW Maple Street PO Box 1241 Scappoose, OR 97056-1241 Attorney for Plaintiff Adrian L. Brown U.S. ATTORNEY S OFFICE DISTRICT OF OREGON 1000 S.W. Third Ave., Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204 PAGE 1 - OPINION AND ORDER L. Jamala Edwards SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, M/S 221A Seattle, WA 98104 Attorneys for Defendant HERNANDEZ, District Judge: Now before me is an unopposed motion for attorney fees (doc. #23) filed by Rainee J. Brown ( Plaintiff ). Plaintiff s motion seeks an award under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), for attorney fees in the sum of $9,576 which is 25% of Plaintiff s Notice of Award from the Social Security Administration less the fee of $7,490 already awarded by this Court under Plaintiff s prior unopposed application for fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ( EAJA ), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), filed on November 21, 2011. BACKGROUND On September 2, 2011, I entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, reversing and remanding the decision of the Social Security Commissioner (the Commissioner ) pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for the immediate calculation and award of benefits. Noted above, Plaintiff filed an unopposed application for fees pursuant to EAJA on November 21, 2011. On April 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed this unopposed motion for attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). STANDARD 42 U.S.C. § 406 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such PAGE 2 - OPINION AND ORDER representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment . . . . 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). DISCUSSION In Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 808 (2002), the United States Supreme Court ( Supreme Court ) recognized that courts have appropriately reduced the attorney s recovery based on the character of the representation and the results the representative achieved by looking first to the contingent-fee agreement, then testing it for reasonableness . Turning first to the contingent-fee agreement between Plaintiff and her attorney, Laurie B. Mapes ( Mapes ), I conclude its terms are within the statutory limits of 42 U.S.C. § 406. See Mot. for Att y Fees, Ex. B, p. 1. Turning next to whether the award of fees sought here is reasonable, I conclude they are. Noted above, I granted Mapes s unopposed application for fees pursuant to EAJA on November 21, 2011, concluding that Mapes was entitled to the sum of $7,490 for 64.9 hours expended. Based on the 64.9 hours Mapes expended on this case and her total fee request of $9,576, her hourly rate is $147.55. Nothing in the record indicates Mapes hour fee here is unreasonable or that the total sum of her attorney fees under the circumstances here are unreasonable. /// /// PAGE 3 - OPINION AND ORDER CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff s unopposed motion for attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (doc. #23) is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff s counsel is to be awarded $9,576, less the EAJA attorney fee of $7,490, for a net award of $2,086 to be paid from Plaintiff s past-due benefits. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 9th day of May, 2012. /s/ Marco A. Hernandez MARCO A. HERNANDEZ United States District Judge PAGE 4 - OPINION AND ORDER

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.