CIAVOLINO
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted the unopposed motion for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1), finding the award reasonable despite appearing extraordinary.
Plaintiff's counsel sought attorney's fees based on a contingency agreement for 25% of retroactive benefits awarded to the plaintiff. The Commissioner…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 42 U.S.C. § 406(B)(1) Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Mariarosaria Ciavolino, Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 19-22643 -Civ-Scola ) Andrew Saul, Commissioner for ) Social Security, Defendant. ) Order Granting Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) Counsel for Plaintiff Mariarosaria Ciavolino seeks the Court’s approval for an award of fees based upon a contingency agreement entitling counsel to twentyfive percent of the retroactive benefits awarded to Ciavolino. (Pl.’s Mot. for Fees, ECF No. 17.)1 Although the Court considers the amount of the award extraordinary, considering the number of hours expended by counsel, the Court nonetheless grants the motion (ECF No. 17) for the following reasons. In evaluating a motion for fees under § 406(b), a court must take into account a number of factors: whether the award represents a windfall to counsel; whether counsel’s “success is attributable to his own work or instead to some unearned advantage”; counsel’s “degree of expertise and adequacy of representation”; “the percentage of back benefits sought”; counsel’s “risk of loss”; “the agreement made by the parties”; the “overall complexity of the case”; and “the significance of the result achieved.” Gossett v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 812 F. App’x 847, 850–51 (11th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up).
Based on the Court’s evaluation of these factors and the particular circumstances of this case, the Court approves the award.
First, the Court notes, importantly, neither the Commissioner nor Ciavolino, oppose the motion. Next, it is undisputed that counsel’s success in this case is attributable to his own work and not to some unearned advantage. In fact, as counsel points out, he was at a disadvantage in this case, facing a great risk of loss, considering he was retained after Ciavolino’s claims were denied though all levels of administrative adjudication. (Pl.’s Mot. at 5.) Further, counsel has over twenty years of social-security disability representation and Ciavolino’s case has been challenged at nearly every turn in this dispute. (Id.) Moreover, upon remand, counsel had to continue developing Ciavolino’s claims until prevailing, yielding the best possible outcome for her.
Finally, there is no dispute that counsel and Ciavolino entered into a valid contingency-fee agreement.
Accordingly, despite the
Robert N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge