UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA WILLIAM L., Case No. 23-CV-0779 (PJS/DTS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for authorization of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and the fee agreement between plaintiff and his legal counsel. Under § 406(b), plaintiff seeks $9,751.50, which represents a total fee award of $18,251.50 less the $8,500.00 that plaintiff was previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act. See ECF No. 20. The government takes no position on plaintiff’s fee request.

Under § 406(b), counsel may recover a reasonable fee not greater than 25 percent of the total past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled. The fee agreement between a plaintiff and his counsel should be the primary means by which attorney fees are determined under § 406(b). Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002).

Nevertheless, courts must also conduct an independent assessment of the reasonableness of the agreement. Id. at 808. In determining the reasonableness of a fee award, courts consider the quality of the representation and the results achieved, as well as the hours spent on the matter, and the attorney’s billing rate. Id. Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that the requested fee is reasonable.

After this Court remanded this case to the agency, an Administrative Law Judge issued a decision favoring plaintiff. ECF No. 26-2 at 2. Counsel spent 52.3 hours on this matter, ECF No. 26-2 at 14, which works out to an hourly rate of approximately $350, a lower hourly rate than other judges in this District have found to be reasonable. See Fensterman v.Comm’r. of Soc. Sec., No. 22-CV-2862 (NEB/ECW), 2025 WL 1340657, at *2 (D. Minn. May 8, 2025) (approving an effective hourly rate of $578.48 per hour); Lee R. v. Kijakazi, No. 20-CV-1989 (TNL), 2023 WL 7014406, at *3 (D. Minn. Oct. 25, 2023) (approving an effective hourly rate of $633.39 per hour). Finally, the total fee amount of $18,251.50 is no more than 25 percent of plaintiff’s past-due benefits. See ECF No. 26-2 at 2. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore granted.

ORDER Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff’s motion for authorization of attorney’s fees [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED.

-2- 2. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), plaintiff’s counsel is awarded a net of $9,751.50 in fees payable from plaintiff’s past-due benefits. This represents a total fee award of $18,251.50 less the $8,500.00 that plaintiff was previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Dated: August 4, 2025 /s/ Patrick J. Schiltz Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge United States District Court

-3-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA WILLIAM L., Case No. 23-CV-0779 (PJS/DTS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for authorization of attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and the fee agreement between plaintiff and his legal counsel. Under § 406(b), plaintiff seeks $9,751.50, which represents a total fee award of $18,251.50 less the $8,500.00 that plaintiff was previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act. See ECF No. 20. The government takes no position on plaintiff’s fee request.

Under § 406(b), counsel may recover a reasonable fee not greater than 25 percent of the total past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled. The fee agreement between a plaintiff and his counsel should be the primary means by which attorney fees are determined under § 406(b). Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002).

Nevertheless, courts must also conduct an independent assessment of the reasonableness of the agreement. Id. at 808. In determining the reasonableness of a fee award, courts consider the quality of the representation and the results achieved, as well as the hours spent on the matter, and the attorney’s billing rate. Id. Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that the requested fee is reasonable.

After this Court remanded this case to the agency, an Administrative Law Judge issued a decision favoring plaintiff. ECF No. 26-2 at 2. Counsel spent 52.3 hours on this matter, ECF No. 26-2 at 14, which works out to an hourly rate of approximately $350, a lower hourly rate than other judges in this District have found to be reasonable. See Fensterman v.Comm’r. of Soc. Sec., No. 22-CV-2862 (NEB/ECW), 2025 WL 1340657, at *2 (D. Minn. May 8, 2025) (approving an effective hourly rate of $578.48 per hour); Lee R. v. Kijakazi, No. 20-CV-1989 (TNL), 2023 WL 7014406, at *3 (D. Minn. Oct. 25, 2023) (approving an effective hourly rate of $633.39 per hour). Finally, the total fee amount of $18,251.50 is no more than 25 percent of plaintiff’s past-due benefits. See ECF No. 26-2 at 2. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore granted.

ORDER Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff’s motion for authorization of attorney’s fees [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED.

-2- 2. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), plaintiff’s counsel is awarded a net of $9,751.50 in fees payable from plaintiff’s past-due benefits. This represents a total fee award of $18,251.50 less the $8,500.00 that plaintiff was previously awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Dated: August 4, 2025 /s/ Patrick J. Schiltz Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge United States District Court

-3-