Sanderson v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BRIDGET S.,
Plaintiff,
-v- 	5:24-CV-1000 (DNH/MJK)
COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
ORDER ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
On August 15, 2024, plaintiff Bridget S.1 (“plaintiff”) filed this action seek-
ing review of the final decision of defendant Commissioner of Social Security
(“Commissioner”) denying her application for benefits under the Social Secu-
rity Act (the “Act”). Dkt. No. 1.
After the Commissioner filed the administrative record, Dkt. No. 10, the
parties stipulated to a remand for further administrative proceedings pursu-
ant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Dkt. No. 11. This Court “so ordered”
1 In accordance with a May 1, 2018 memorandum issued by the Judicial Conference’s Committee
on Court Administration and Case Management and adopted as local practice in this District, only
claimant’s first name and last initial will be mentioned in this opinion.
Case 5:24-cv-01000-DNH-MJK Document 19 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
the stipulation on December 4, 2024, Dkt. No. 12, and a judgment in plaintiff’s
favor was entered later that day, Dkt. No. 13.
On March 3, 2025, plaintiff moved for an award of attorney’s fees as a “pre-
vailing party” under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), which shifts
litigation fees to a government defendant when certain conditions are met.
Dkt. No. 14. A few days later, the parties stipulated to an award of $1,227.06
in EAJA fees, Dkt. No. 15, and this Court approved the stipulation on March
5, 	2025, 	Dkt. 	No. 	16. 	Following 	remand, 	plaintiff 	was 	administratively
awarded benefits. See Dkt. No. 17-1 ¶ 8.
On October 5, 2026, plaintiff moved for a further award of attorney’s fees
under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), which authorizes a court to grant a “reasonable” fee
in a successful Social Security action.2 	Dkt. 17. 	The Commissioner has re-
sponded. 	Dkt. No. 18. 	The motion will be considered on the basis of the sub-
missions without oral argument.
Originally passed in 1965, the effect of § 406(b) is threefold: “it fixes a max-
imum percentage for contingent fees of twenty-five percent; it permits recovery
of such fees only out of past due benefits, and it requires court approval for
2 Congress has authorized fee awards under both the EAJA (payable by the Government) and
under § 406(b) (payable out of a claimant’s past-due benefits). However, when an attorney seeks fees
under both provisions, the EAJA award is treated as an offset: the claimant’s attorney must refund to
the claimant the amount of the smaller fee.
Case 5:24-cv-01000-DNH-MJK Document 19 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
whatever amount of fees should be paid.” Fields v. Kijakazi, 24 F.4th 845, 852
(2d Cir. 2022) (cleaned up).
The “court approval” contemplated by § 406(b) is “reasonableness” review,
which includes consideration of factors such as: (1) whether the percentage is
within 	the 	25% 	cap; 	(2) 	whether 	there 	has 	been 	fraud 	or 	overreaching;
(3) whether the requested amount is a windfall to the claimant’s attorney;
(4) the character and results of the representation; (5) the amount of time
spent on the case; (6) whether the attorney is responsible for any delay; and (7)
the normal charge for non-contingent-fee cases. 	BillyJo M. v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec., 568 F. Supp. 3d 309, 311 (W.D.N.Y. 2021) (cleaned up) (collecting cases);
see also Fields, 24 F.4th at 854.
Upon review of the submissions in light of the governing law, plaintiff’s re-
quest for a § 406(b) fee will be granted. 	Counsel acted diligently to achieve a
favorable result for their client. This case required agency proceedings, at least
partial briefing in federal court, and then some more proceedings on remand.
The requested de facto hourly rate amounts to about $910.00, which is a low-
to-middling hourly rate in this nuanced area of law. Fields, 24 F.4th at 856 &
n.10 (approving de facto rate of $1,556.98 and collecting cases assessing a
range of hourly rates as high as $2,100). The requested fee (of $6,830.00) does
not exceed twenty-five percent of the past-due benefits (totaling $83,719.98).
Case 5:24-cv-01000-DNH-MJK Document 19 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
And there is no indication that it would amount to a “windfall.” 	Accordingly,
the fee is “reasonable” within the meaning of the governing law.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED;
2. A fee in the amount of $6,830.00 (Dkt. No. 17-1 ¶ 7) is AUTHORIZED to
be paid from the claimant’s past-due benefits; and
3. 	Plaintiff’s attorneys must surrender to plaintiff any fee previously re-
ceived under the EAJA.
The Clerk is directed to terminate the pending motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 5:24-cv-01000-DNH-MJK Document 19 Filed 10/15/26 Page 4 of 4