WILLIAM A. HOWARD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Civil No. 17-cv-203-JPG-RJD ) COMMISSIONER of SOCIAL SECURITY, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER for ATTORNEY’S FEES

DALY, Magistrate Judge:

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Petition for Attorney Fees Pursuant to § 206(b)(1) (Doc. 32). After this Court reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of

(g), the Commissioner granted Plaintiff’s application for benefits. The fee agreement between Plaintiff and his attorney (Doc. 36, Ex. 2) provided for a fee of 25% of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits. Plaintiff was found to be disabled as of June 15, 2013, and the amount of past-due benefits is $85,098.00. The Commissioner withheld 25% of that amount ($21,274.50) for attorney’s fees, subject to court approval. (Doc. 32, Ex. 1).

(b)(1)(A) provides that the Court may allow a “reasonable fee,” not in excess of 25% of the total of the past-due benefits. However, if the Court approves such a fee, “no other fee may be payable or certified for payment for such representation except as provided in this paragraph.”

In practical terms, this means that, when a fee is awarded under § 406(b)(1), counsel must refund any amount previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act,

(d)(1)(B). Here, the Court awarded an EAJA fee in the amount of $4,757.29. (Doc. 31). The Supreme Court has held that § 406(b)(1) controls, but does not displace, contingent fee agreement in social security cases: benefits claimants in court. Rather, § 406(b) calls for court review of such arrangements as an independent check, to assure that they yield reasonable results in particular cases.

Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,

(2002). Having reviewed the circumstances presented here, including the time and effort expended by counsel, the excellent result received by Plaintiff, the amount of the past-due benefits and the value of the projected benefits, the Court concludes that $21,274.50 is a reasonable fee. The Court notes that counsel agrees to waive any claim for fees for representing Plaintiff at the administrative level. (Doc. 32, ¶ 14). While the Commissioner has no direct stake in the § 406(b)(1) fee request, he “plays a part in the fee determination resembling that of a trustee for the claimants.” Gisbrecht,

. The Commissioner has filed a response indicating he does not oppose the fee request. (Doc. 34). Wherefore, Plaintiff’s Petition for Attorney Fees (Doc. 32) is GRANTED. The Court awards Plaintiff’s counsel Frederick J. Daley, Jr. a fee of $21,274.50 (twenty-one thousand, two hundred seventy-four dollars and fifty cents), to be paid by the agency from the past-due benefits. Upon receipt, counsel shall refund to Plaintiff the amount of the EAJA fee. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 15, 2020.

s/ Reona J. Daly REONA J. DALY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE