KRAUSE

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Consent Petition for Attorney Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (Doc. 22). For the reasons discussed below, the Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

I.

The Plaintiff initiated this action in May 2019, seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision terminating his Social Security Disability Insurance benefits. (Doc. 1). After the Plaintiff submitted his portion of the joint memorandum to the Commissioner, the Commissioner moved for the entry of a judgment in the Plaintiff’s favor and requested the case be remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 17). The Court granted that motion (Doc. 18), and the Clerk of Court entered Judgment for the Plaintiff the same day (Doc. 19). Roughly six weeks later, the Plaintiff sought and received $7,064.77 in attorneys’ fees and $440 in costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). (Doc. 21).

As a result of the subsequent proceedings on remand, the Plaintiff was granted past-due benefits. (Doc. 22-2). According to the award letter, dated February 16, 2021, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has withheld $37,745.12 of this past-due amount for a possible future award of attorneys’ fees. Id. at 4. This $37,745.12 figure equates to 25% of the Plaintiff’s past-due benefits, which is the statutory limit for such fee awards. By way of the instant motion, the Plaintiff now asks that the Court enter an order pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) approving fees in the amount of $37,745.12, which is the stipulated sum in his contingency fee agreement with his lawyers. (Doc. 22 at 4; Doc. 22-1). The Plaintiff represents that his attorneys are aware of their obligation to refund to him the previous EAJA fee award of $7,064.77 in the event the Court grants his motion. (Doc. 22 at 4). The Plaintiff also states that the Commissioner consents to the sought-after fee award.

II.

Section 406(b) of Title 42, United States Code, governs the authorization of attorney’s fees in Social Security cases where, as here, a district court remands the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings, and the Commissioner subsequently grants the claimant past-due benefits. Bergen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 454

F. 3d 1273, 1276–78 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).² Under such circumstances, the claimant may return to the district court—as the Plaintiff has done here—and seek fees not exceeding 25% of the past-due benefits awarded. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A); Culbertson v. Berryhill, 586 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 517, 522 (2019). The fee amount authorized, however, must be reasonable. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 808 (2002); Jackson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 601 F. 3d 1268, 1271 (11th Cir. 2010). To ensure that this is the case, section 406(b) mandates that courts conduct an independent review of counsels’ fee arrangements with their clients. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. As part of their oversight role, courts may direct that an attorney provide “a record of the hours spent representing the claimant and a statement of the lawyer’s normal hourly billing charge for noncontingent-fee cases.”

Commissioner’s consent to the sought-after fee amount, the Court finds that the requested fees are reasonable.

III.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Plaintiff’s Consent Petition for Attorney Fees (Doc. 22) is granted, and the Plaintiff is awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $37,745.12 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). This figure shall be paid to Plaintiff's counsel from the past-due benefits currently being withheld by the Commissioner. 2. Upon receipt of these funds, Plaintiffs counsel shall promptly refund to the Plaintiff the previously awarded EAJA fee of $7,064.77.

3. This action is closed and shall remain closed.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 21st day of April 2021.

Onnierrely P Ak

HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER P. TUITE

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to: Counsel of record