POISSONNIER v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
LINWOOD P.,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK J. BISIGNANO,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:24-cv-00054-SDN
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR AWARD OF
ATTORNEY FEES
On January 7, 2026, Attorney Dominic Pontello filed a motion for an award of
attorney fees in the amount of $28,284.50 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) for work
performed on behalf of Plaintiff Linwood P. ECF No. 20. On January 13, 2026, the
Commissioner responded. ECF No. 22. On February 6, 2026, Attorney Pontello filed
supplemental attachments detailing his hourly calculations and invoices. ECF No. 24. For
the reasons detailed below, I grant Attorney Pontello’s motion.
BACKGROUND
In this matter, Plaintiff agreed to pay Attorney Pontello a contingent fee for
representation in the amount of 25 percent of the total of any past-due Social Security
Disability Benefits awarded to him. See ECF No. 20-2 at 1. Attorney Pontello represented
Plaintiff in this Court for judicial review of an unfavorable decision by an Administrative
Law Judge denying Plaintiff’s claim for Disability Benefits from the Social Security
Administration. 	See 	ECF 	Nos. 1, 	12. 	On 	August 23, 	2024, 	the 	Social 	Security
Commissioner submitted an unopposed motion to remand the case to the Social Security
Case 1:24-cv-00054-SDN Document 25 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Administration for further proceedings. ECF No. 15. The Court granted the motion to
remand. ECF No. 16. The Social Security Appeals Council remanded the case for a hearing
that resulted in a fully favorable judgment in favor of Plaintiff for $113,138.00 in past-due
Disability Benefits and $1,735.00 in regular monthly payments. See ECF Nos. 20 at 2–3,
20-1. The Social Security Administration explained it withheld 25 percent of Plaintiff’s
award for the work performed by Attorney Pontello, amounting in $28,284.50. ECF No.
20-1 at 3. This Court previously entered an order approving payment to Attorney Fenner
under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) in the amount of $7,000.00. See ECF No.
19. Attorney Pontello admits to receiving the EAJA payment and his obligation to refund
the amount to Plaintiff after receiving attorney fees. See ECF No. 20 at 3.
DISCUSSION
Section 406(b) of the Social Security Act provides that when a court renders a
judgment favorable to a represented claimant, “the court may determine and allow as part
of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the
total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such
judgment.” 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). The Supreme Court holds that contingent fee
agreements are permissible in matters involving Social Security benefits claimants. See
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 807 (2002). However, the Court must be satisfied
“that the fee sought is reasonable for the services rendered.” Id. This Court has previously
recognized that:
Reduction in the amount that otherwise would be payable pursuant to a
contingent fee agreement between a claimant and attorney is appropriate to
the 	extent that 	(i) 	counsel’s conduct 	is 	improper 	or 	representation
substandard; for example, an attorney is responsible for a delay that has
caused an accumulation of past-due benefits, or (ii) the benefits are
[sufficiently] disproportionate in relation to the amount of time counsel
spent on the case to “implicate windfall concerns.”
Case 1:24-cv-00054-SDN Document 25 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Michelle B. v. O’Malley, No. 21-CV-00337, 2024 WL 657000, at *1 (D. Me. Feb. 16, 2024),
report and recommendation aff’d, 2024 WL 3718347 (Aug. 8, 2024) (quoting Beaulieu
v. Colvin, No. 10-CV-454, 2016 WL 675646, at *2 (D. Me. Jan. 28, 2016), report and
recommendation aff’d, 2016 WL 675646 (Feb. 18, 2016)) (alteration in Michelle B.).
Lastly, 	if 	the 	claimant’s representative received fees pursuant to 	the 	EAJA, 	the
representative must refund the smaller fee amount to claimant. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S.
at 796.
Attorney Pontello asserts that the above fee equates to an hourly rate of $831.89
for 34 hours and is thereby reasonable under the law. See ECF Nos. 24 at 2, 24-1, 24-2.
The Commissioner neither supports nor opposes counsel’s fee amount in this matter. ECF
No. 22 at 1. I agree with Attorney Pontello that the fee is permissible by law.
First, “the fee request conforms with the Plaintiff’s contingent fee agreement and
does not exceed the 25 [percent] statutory limit.” Christopher H. v. Kijakazi, No. 18-CV-
00355, 2022 WL 17668469, at *1 (D. Me. Dec. 14, 2022). Second, Plaintiff’s counsel’s
“work in this Court prompted a motion for remand, and the Commissioner has provided
nothing to suggest that the Plaintiff’s subsequent success was not due to the efforts of his
attorney.” Id. Third, there is no “suggestion of inadequate representation, delay, or an
inordinately easy case.” Id. Finally, the effective hourly rate is in harmony with amounts
this Court has previously deemed reasonable. See Order (ECF No. 23), Alan S. v. Kijakazi,
No. 18-CV-00199 (D. Me. Jan. 9, 2023) (approving a Section 406(b) fee with an effective
hourly rate of $2,158.20); Christopher H., 2022 WL 17668469, at *1 (approving a Section
406(b) fee with an effectively hourly rate of $1,190.48); Weed v. Colvin, No. 14-CV-271,
2016 WL 3919849, at *2–3 (D. Me. July 15, 2016) (approving a Section 406(b) fee with
an effective hourly rate of $1,279.56).
Case 1:24-cv-00054-SDN Document 25 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Motion for Award of Attorney Fees is GRANTED, ECF No. 20,
and the Court ORDERS that a fee award in the amount of $28,284.50 be paid to Attorney
Pontello 	from 	Plaintiff’s 	past-due 	benefits 	in 	accordance 	with 	Social 	Security
Administration policy, subject to the requirement that Attorney Pontello pay Plaintiff
$7,000.00, the sum earlier awarded to Attorney Pontello pursuant to the Equal Access to
Justice Act.
S O ORDERED.
Dated this 12th day of February, 2026.
/s/ Stacey D. Neumann
UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00054-SDN Document 25 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>