Karen S. Campbell v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION KAREN S. CAMPBELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-00144 v. ) ) FRANK BISIGNANO1, ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the court on the Amended Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 406(b) [DE 28] filed by the Ann M. Trzynka, counsel for the plaintiff, Karen S.

Campbell, on March 18, 2026. Defendant filed a Response [DE 29] indicating that the Agency neither agreed nor disagreed that Plaintiff’s counsel should be awarded fees pursuant to Section 406(b). For the following reasons, the Motion [DE 28] is GRANTED.

Background Plaintiff Karen S. Campbell filed an application for Social Security Disability and benefits and Supplemental Security Income under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, alleging a disability onset date of June 2019. [DE 22-1]. The Agency denied Plaintiff’s claims in a “Recommended Decision” on February 3, 2023. Plaintiff requested a final decision from the Frank Bisignano was confirmed as Commissioner on May 6, 2025. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Frank Bisignano should be substituted as the defendant in this suit. No further action need be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Appeals Council on March 1, 2024, making the ALJ’s decision the final Agency decision. [DE 1]. Plaintiff initiated civil action in this court for judicial review of the denial of her application for benefits on April 9, 2024.

The court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Remand [DE 11] on June 26, 2024. [DE 12]. Following this court’s remand, an ALJ approved Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Insurance benefits. [DE 22-1]. The Social Security Administration issued a Notice of Award letter dated July 22, 2025. Plaintiff was awarded past-due benefits in the amount of $93,817.00. [DE 22-1].

Plaintiff agreed to pay Attorney Trzynka 25% of all past-due benefits awarded to her and any beneficiaries by the Administration. [DE 22-1].

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney Fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) in July of 2024. [DE 14]. Defendant filed a Response [DE 18] indicating that it did not object. On August 6, 2024, the court granted the request and awarded Plaintiff $2,312.40 for attorney fees in full satisfaction of all claims under the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. [DE 19]. In total, Plaintiff’s counsel has received $2,312.40 in attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Id. In its September 2025 Order [DE 25], this court granted Attorney Trzynka’s first Section 406(b) fee request and awarded her a total fee of $8,454.25. That fee request was based on Attorney Trzynka’s work for Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s favorable decision on remand. [DE 26]. Since September 2025, Plaintiff’s children have been awarded past-due benefits in the amount of $138,503.00.

Attorney Trzynka now asks the court to authorize an award of attorney fees in the total amount of $10,000.00 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) for the hours she spent representing Plaintiff’s children.

The motion is ripe for ruling.

Discussion The Social Security Act allows for a reasonable fee to be awarded both for representation at the administrative level, see 42 U.S.C. § 406(a), as well as representation before the court, see 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). See Culbertson v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 517, 520 (2019) (quoting Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 794 (2002)). Under § 406(b), the court may award a reasonable fee to the attorney who has successfully represented the claimant in federal court, not to exceed twenty-five percent of the past-due benefits to which the social security claimant is entitled. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A); Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 792. “The reasonableness analysis considers the ‘character of the representation and the results achieved.’” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808. The award may be reduced because of an attorney’s unjustifiable delay or if the amount of time an attorney has spent on a case is excessive in comparison to the past-due benefits. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808. Counsel cannot recover fees under both the EAJA and § 406(b), so they must either refund the EAJA award or subtract that amount from the § 406(b) request. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796 (explaining that “an EAJA award offsets an award under Section 406(b)”).

Attorney Trzynka requests an attorney fee in the amount of $10,000.00. Attorney Trzynka contends that the requested fee award is reasonable for the 9.4 hours of legal work she spent representing Plaintiff in federal court. [DE 28]. Attorney Trzynka’s total requested fee amounts to an hourly rate of $1,063.83 for attorney time. This calculated rate is within the bounds of reasonableness in this district especially considering that these cases are taken on a contingent fee basis. See Long v. Saul, 2021 WL 2588110, at *1 (N.D. Ind. June 24, 2021) (awarding a fee equating to $1,711.96 per hour); Ringle v. Kijakazi, 2021 WL 3550892, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 11, 2021) (awarding fee equating to $1,923.00 per hour). Furthermore, there is no indication of delay in this case. Accordingly, the court finds that the requested fee is reasonable.

The previous 406(b) award was already offset against Attorney Tryznka’s EAJA award. [See DE 25]. Accordingly, this supplemental award is not subject to any offset. Attorney Tryznka’s total 406(b) award for representing Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s children will be $18,454.25,2 which only 13.70%3 of past-due benefits and is within the statutory limits.

Based on the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS the Motion [DE 28] and AWARDS additional fees to Attorney Ann M. Trzynka in the amount of $10,000.00. The Supplemental Motion for Attorney Fees [DE 26] is DENIED AS MOOT.

ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2026.

/s/ Andrew P. Rodovich United States Magistrate Judge

2 $8,454.25 + $10,000.00 = $18,454.25 (18,454.25 / 134,657.00) x 100 = 13.70%