Burney v. Social Security Administration, No. 6:2013cv00342 - Document 34 (E.D. Okla. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West granting 31 Motion for Attorney Fees. (sjr, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Burney v. Social Security Administration Doc. 34 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA MERVIN L. BURNEY, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant. Case No. CIV-13-342-KEW OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before this Court on the Motion for Attorney Fees Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) filed by Timothy M. White, the attorney for Plaintiff (Docket Entry #31). Counsel requests that he be awarded fees for legal work pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in the amount of $19,274.00, which includes a self-imposed reduction for filing a late reply brief in the appeal. by Plaintiff to appeal the adverse Counsel was employed decision rendered by Administrative Law Judge presiding over the request for benefits. To that end, Counsel entered into a contract for compensation with Plaintiff, providing for the payment of a fee equal to 25% of any past due benefits ultimately awarded to Plaintiff. Such contracts are recognized as valid under the prevailing case authority. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). Counsel filed Plaintiff’s opening brief and reply. was successful in this appeal. Plaintiff As a result, Plaintiff was awarded attorneys’ fees in accordance with the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) for the efforts before this Court in the amount of $5,936.40. On remand, the ALJ entered a fully favorable decision and awarded past due benefits of $78,084.00. Dockets.Justia.com The amount awarded to counsel for successfully prosecuting an appeal of a denial of Social Security benefits and obtaining benefits for a claimant may not exceed 25% of past due benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). As in this case, Defendant is authorized to withhold up to 25% of the past due benefits awarded to a claimant for payment directly to the claimant’s attorney. U.S.C. § 406(a)(4). 42 Recently, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the 25% amount is separate and apart from the amount awarded at the agency level under 42 U.S.C. § 406(a). Wrenn v. Astrue, 525 F.3d 931, 937-938 (10th Cir. 2008). The only condition upon the full award of 25% is a requirement that the court review contingency fee arrangements “to assure that they yield reasonable results in particular cases.” Id. at 938 (citations omitted). Counsel’s requested fees do not exceed either the amount contracted for in the contingency fee agreement or the limitations of § 406(b). Defendant does not take a position on awarding the amount requested but does advise this Court of its obligation to make an “independent check” as to the reasonableness of the award. Despite the fact the source for Counsel’s compensation is a contingency fee contract, this Court has reviewed the contemporaneous time and expense records based upon the admonishment of the Tenth Circuit to do so and finds the time expended to be reasonable and necessary in consideration of the result obtained. Defendant makes an unsupported argument that due to the “extremely high rate of remand from this District Court”, a contingency hourly rate of $450.00 is more reasonable than the resulting rate. 2 This Court finds this argument curious and without legal or factual support. Moreover, Defendant’s stated concern that Counsel have been compensated by EAJA is allayed by the fact Counsel must refund the smaller of any EAJA award and the amount awarded under § 406(b) to prevent a double recovery by the attorney. Kemp v. Bowen, 822 F.2d 966, 968 (10th Cir. 1987). Counsel will be required to make the refund. Defendant also rightly asserts a § 406(b) request must be filed within a reasonable time. In seeking an award under § 406(b), an attorney is required to employ the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). McGraw v. Barnhart, 450 F.3d 493, 505 (10th Cir. 2006). While relief under this rule is considered extraordinary and reserved for exceptional circumstances, substantial justice is served by permitting its use in the circumstance faced by counsel in seeking these fees. Id. To that end, any fee request pursued under § 406(b) should be filed Commissioner’s decision “within a reasonable time of the awarding benefits.” Id. (citation omitted). In this case, Notice of Award was issued by Defendant on February 8, 2016. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion requesting an extension of time to file a § 406(b) request. this Court allowed Counsel until 30 days after the receipt of a Notice of Award by which to file a request for fees. subject Motion on March 7, 2016. Counsel filed the This Court cannot find the delay which occurred in this case warrants the draconian result of denying an award of fees. Therefore, the request is considered timely. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Attorney Fees Under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) filed by Timothy M. White, the attorney for Plaintiff (Docket Entry #31) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel is awarded fees in the amount of $19,274.00 and Defendant is directed to pay this fee directly to counsel from the amount of past due benefits withheld for that purpose. In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel shall refund the smaller amount between any EAJA fees already awarded and the § 406(b) fees awarded in this decision to Plaintiff. Weakley v. Bowen, 803 F.2d 575, 580 (10th Cir. 1986). IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of May, 2016. ______________________________ KIMBERLY E. WEST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4
]]>
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.
