REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT: (1) THE UNOPPOSED MOTION BY PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL FOR AN ATTORNEY'S FEE AWARD (DOC. 17) BE GRANTED; (2) FEES, PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000.00 BE AWARDED; (3) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL TO REFUND TO PLAINTIFF, WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS, THE EAJA FEE PREVIOUSLY AWARDED TO COUNSEL; AND (4) THIS CASE REMAIN TERMINATED ON THE COURT'S DOCKET

MICHAEL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

On July 25, 2017, Judge Rice reversed the Commissioner's non-disability finding and remanded this case to the Commissioner of Social Security for an immediate award of benefits. Doc. 13. Subsequently, Plaintiff received an award of benefits under the Social Security Act. See doc. 17-2 at PageID 100-103. Thereafter, counsel sought, and was awarded in this Court, attorney's fees in the amount of $7,500.00 under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Plaintiff's counsel now moves for an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $25,000 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).2 Doc. 17. The Commissioner did not oppose Plaintiff's counsel's motion, and the time for doing so has expired. Accordingly, counsel's unopposed motion for attorney's fees is ripe for decision.

I.

In Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") and/or Disability Insurance Benefit ("DIB") cases, the Court is authorized to award attorney's fees following a successful Social Security disability appeal. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 402(b)(1), 1383(d)(2). However, such contingency fees (1) may not exceed 25% of the past-due benefits which the claimant receives as a result of an appeal, and (2) must additionally be reasonable for the services rendered. Gisbrecht v. Barnhard, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002).

The Social Security Act "does not displace contingen[cy]-fee agreements," but rather "calls for court review of such arrangements as an independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results in particular cases." Id. A 25% contingency fee agreement "should be given the weight ordinarily accorded a rebuttable presumption." Rodriquez v. Brown, 865 F.2d 739, 746 (6th Cir. 1989). A reduction of a contingency fee award may be appropriate when counsel acts improperly or provides ineffective assistance, or when "counsel would otherwise enjoy a windfall because of either an inordinately large benefit award or from minimal effort expended." Id. Such an award is not improper merely because it results in an above-average hourly rate. Royzer v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 900 F.2d 981, 981-82 (6th Cir. 1990).

As the Sixth Circuit explained:

Id. "A hypothetical hourly rate that is less than twice the standard rate is per se reasonable, and a hypothetical hourly rate that is equal to or greater than twice the standard rate may well be reasonable." Hayes v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 923 F.2d 418, 422 (6th Cir. 1990).

Here, counsel's requested fee of $25,000.00, divided by the 47.15 hours spent working on the case, results, as noted, in a hypothetical hourly rate of $530.22, an hourly rate that is — without dispute and based upon the materials submitted in support of Plaintiff's motion — reasonable in light of the skill and experience of counsel. Doc. 17 at PageID 95.

II.

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: (1) Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees under the Social Security Act (doc. 17) be GRANTED; (2) Plaintiff's counsel be AWARDED the requested sum of $25,000.00 in attorney's fees; and (3) this case remain TERMINATED on the Court's docket.

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being served with this Report and Recommendation. This period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) if served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court's CM/ECF filing system. If, however, this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended to SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Parties may seek an extension of the deadline to file objections by filing a motion for extension, which the Court may grant upon a showing of good cause.

Any objections filed shall specify the portions of the Report and Recommendation objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based, in whole or in part, upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs.

A party may respond to another party's objections within FOURTEEN days after being served with a copy thereof. As noted above, this period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) if served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court's CM/ECF filing system. If, however, this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended to SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).

Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).