LYNN CARLSON V. COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY A, No. 10-35941 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LYNN CARLSON, No. 10-35941 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01202-ST v. MEMORANDUM * COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Tim Wilborn, the attorney of record for Lynn Carlson and the real-party-ininterest, appeals from the district court s order granting in part his motion for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). attorney s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) based on a contingent-fee agreement with Carlson. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by reducing the fees from the amount specified in the fee agreement based on the court s assessment of what was reasonable given the risk and complexity involved in this case. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 808 (2002) (stating that [i]f the benefits are large in comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case, a downward adjustment is . . . in order ); Crawford, 586 F.3d at 1152-53 (explaining that courts should assess the complexity and risk involved in the specific case at issue, rather than social security cases in general, when analyzing the reasonableness of the requested fees); see also Clark v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 1211, 1214 (9th Cir. 2008) ( The district court abuses its discretion if it does not apply the correct legal standard or rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of fact. ). AFFIRMED. 2 10-35941
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.
