Wampole v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jesse Wampole,
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
No. CV-24-00919-PHX-DJH
ORDER
Plaintiff Jesse Wampole (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for the Payment of Attorney
Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Doc. 19), seeking an award of $9,258.50. Plaintiff’s
Motion was backed by the Declaration of Rory Linerud, Plaintiff’s counsel. (See Doc. 20).
The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) Commissioner (the “Commissioner”) filed a
Response (Doc. 21) neither supporting nor opposing the award sought.
I. Background
Nikki Wampole originally filed Applications for Social Security Disability
Insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income. (Doc. 1 at 2). On July 13, 2023,
The ALJ determined that Nikki Wampole was not disabled under the SSA. Ms. Wampole
passed away on January 4, 2024, and, as her next of kin, Plaintiff proceeded on Ms.
Wampole’s behalf. The ALJ’s decision became the final agency decision after the Appeals
Council denied review on March 27, 2024. (Id.). Plaintiff then sought judicial review of
the ALJ’s decision. (See id.). On August 8, 2024, the parties filed a Stipulated Motion to
Remand, requesting that the Court reverse and remand the ALJ’s decision for further
Case 2:24-cv-00919-DJH Document 22 Filed 04/09/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
proceedings. (See Doc. 13). The Court granted the parties’ Stipulated Motion on August
14, 2024. In accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the Court also issued Plaintiff an
award of $8,150.00 in attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act
(“EAJA”). (Doc. 18).
On remand, Plaintiff received a favorable decision, and, of the awarded amount,
$9,258.50 was set aside to pay Plaintiff’s representative. (Doc. 20-1 at 1). The SSA stated,
in their decision, that $9,258.50 represented 25% of Plaintiff’s past due benefits. (Id.)
Therefore, it can be inferred that Plaintiff’s total award was approximately $37,034.00.
Pursuant to the fee agreement, Plaintiff’s counsel now seeks $9,258.50 in attorney fees.
II. Legal Standard
Section 4061 establishes “the exclusive regime for obtaining fees for successful
representation of Social Security benefits claimants.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789,
795–96 (2002). Section 406(b) provides that “[w]henever a court renders a judgment
favorable to a claimant . . . who was represented before the court by an attorney, 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). Fees are payable out
of, and not in addition to, the amount of the past-due benefits. Id. Before awarding fees,
the Court must consider whether the 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) fee requested is (1) within the
statutory guidelines; (2) consistent with the fee agreement; and (3) reasonable in light of
the contingent-fee agreement. Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807–08.
III. Discussion
Plaintiff’s counsel is seeking $9,258.50 in § 496(b) fees. (Doc. 20 at 1). Upon
review of Plaintiff’s Memorandum, the time expended and the amounts charged by
Plaintiff’s counsel are reasonable in this case. First, the fees sought adhere to § 406(b)’s
guidelines. Plaintiff was awarded around $37,034.00 in past-due benefits, and the
requested $9,258.50 in attorney fees equals 25% of the award. Second, this amount is
1 Unless where otherwise noted, all Section references are to the Social Security Act.
Case 2:24-cv-00919-DJH Document 22 Filed 04/09/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
consistent with the fee agreement which clearly states that Plaintiff’s attorney would be
entitled to 25% of past-due benefits. (Doc. 20-2 at 1). Lastly, the requested fee is
reasonable given the contingent-fee agreement because it reflects the nature of the
recovery. (Doc. 20 at 2). In sum, the Court finds that the amount requested is reasonable
under Gisbrecht and will award Plaintiff $9,258.50 in § 406(b) fees.
However, Plaintiff requests that, instead of refunding the previous award of
$8,150.00 under the EAJA, the EAJA be subtracted from $9,258.50 requested here. (Id. at
2). As a result, net payable amount would be $1,108.50. The SSA takes no position on
this request. (Doc. 21 at 3). Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request and award
Plaintiff’s counsel $1,108.50, which represents the net sum of the $9,258.50 fee award
under § 406(b) minus the $8,150.00 in fees received under the EAJA.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 19) is
granted under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Plaintiff’s counsel Robin Larkin is awarded $1,108.50
in attorney fees, representing the net amount of the total $9,258.50 in §406(b) fees minus
the $8,150.00 in EAJA fees, to be paid out of the sum from Plaintiff’s past-due benefits.
Dated this 9th day of April, 2026.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 2:24-cv-00919-DJH Document 22 Filed 04/09/26 Page 3 of 3