DEBORAH BARNES, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff brought this action seeking judicial review of a final administrative decision denying an application for Disability Insurance Benefits Under Title II of the Social Security Act ("the Act") and for Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Act. By order filed September 7, 2018, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted, the decision of the Commissioner was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
On October 2, 2019, counsel for plaintiff filed a motion for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (ECF No. 23.) Specifically, plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel entered into a contingent-fee agreement. (ECF No. 23-1.) Pursuant to that agreement plaintiff's counsel now seeks attorney's fees in the amount of $10,279.57, which represents 16% of the retroactive disability benefits received by plaintiff on remand, for approximately 18.5 hours of attorney time expended on this matter. (ECF No. 23 at 3.) Defendant filed "an analysis of the fee request" but "takes no position on the reasonableness of the request." (ECF No. 24 at 4.)
Attorneys are entitled to fees for cases in which they have successfully represented social security claimants.
42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). "In contrast to fees awarded under fee-shifting provisions such as 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the fee is paid by the claimant out of the past-due benefits awarded; the losing party is not responsible for payment."
The 25% statutory maximum fee is not an automatic entitlement, and the court must ensure that the fee actually requested is reasonable.
The Supreme Court has identified five factors that may be considered in determining whether a fee award under a contingent-fee arrangement is unreasonable and therefore subject to reduction by the court: (1) the character of the representation; (2) the results achieved by the representative; (3) whether the attorney engaged in dilatory conduct in order to increase the accrued amount of past-due benefits; (4) whether the benefits are large in comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case; and (5) the attorney's record of hours worked and counsel's regular hourly billing charge for noncontingent cases.
Here, there is no indication that a reduction of fees is warranted due to any substandard performance by counsel. Rather, plaintiff's counsel is an experienced attorney who secured a successful result for plaintiff. There is also no evidence that plaintiff's counsel engaged in any dilatory conduct resulting in excessive delay. The court finds that the $10,279.57 fee, which represents 16% of the past-due benefits paid to plaintiff, is not excessive in relation to the benefits awarded. In making this determination, the court recognizes the contingent fee nature of this case and counsel's assumption of the risk of going uncompensated in agreeing to represent plaintiff on such terms.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the court concludes that the fees sought by counsel pursuant to § 406(b) are reasonable.
An award of § 406(b) fees is, however, offset by any prior award of attorney's fees granted under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2412;
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's October 2, 2019 motion for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), (ECF No. 23), is granted;
2. Counsel for plaintiff is awarded $10,279.57 in attorney fees under § 406(b). The Commissioner is directed to pay the fee forthwith and remit to plaintiff the remainder any withheld benefits; and
3. Upon receipt of the $10,279.57 in attorney fees pursuant to § 406(b), counsel shall reimburse plaintiff in the amount of $3,000 previously paid by the government under the EAJA.