Herrera 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
Christina Herrera,
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
No. CV-18-02658-PHX-KML
ORDER
In 2014, plaintiff Christina Herrera filed an application for disability benefits. (Doc.
15 at 2.) An Administrative Law Judge later issued a partially-favorable decision. (Doc. 15
at 2.) Dissatisfied with that outcome, in July 2018, Herrera signed a contingency fee
agreement with attorney Mark Caldwell. That agreement contemplated Caldwell would
represent Herrera “in a federal court action for judicial review of [the] decision” denying
her claim for disability benefits. (Doc. 24-2 at 2.) The agreement set Caldwell’s fee as an
amount “equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of all past-due benefits awarded to [Herrera]
and any other individuals(s) entitled to benefits by reason of the award to [Herrera].” (Doc.
24-2 at 2.) One month after the agreement was executed, Caldwell filed the present suit.
In April 2019 the court reversed the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and
remanded for further proceedings. (Doc. 18.) A few months later, the court awarded
Caldwell $8,164.80 in attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. (Doc. 21.)
For unknown reasons the additional proceedings took a significant amount of time, but
eventually Herrera and her child were awarded benefits. The agency withheld 25% of the
Case 2:18-cv-02658-KML Document 28 Filed 01/29/26 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
awards (i.e., $58,233.75) to pay Caldwell. (Doc. 24-1 at 4, 9.) The agency also awarded
Herrera’s administrative counsel $11,975.00 for the work performed during the agency
proceedings. (Doc. 24 at 2.) Caldwell now seeks an award of $46,258.75 in attorneys’ fees,
calculated as the 25% withheld by the agency ($58,233.75) minus the administrative
attorneys’ fees ($11,975.00) already paid. (Doc. 24 at 1.) According to Caldwell’s billing
records, he performed 40.5 hours of work in this case. The amount he seeks therefore
represents an effective hourly rate of $1,142.19. The commissioner “neither supports nor
opposes” Caldwell’s request. (Doc. 27 at 3.)
The relevant statute allows the court to award Caldwell “a reasonable fee for [his]
representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 406(b). When an attorney files a request for fees under § 406(b), the court must “look[]
first to the contingent-fee agreement, then test[] it for reasonableness.” Crawford v. Astrue,
586 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2009) (simplified). There is no “definitive list of factors that
should be considered in determining whether a fee is reasonable or how those factors
should be weighed.” Id. at 1151. But the court’s reasonableness inquiry may look to
“substandard performance, delay, or benefits that are not in proportion to the time spent on
the case.” Id.
Here, the agreement allows Caldwell to recover 25% of past-due benefits. There is
“no evidence of fraud or overreaching in the making of the 25% contingent-fee
agreement[],” so the 25% permitted by the agreement is an appropriate starting point. Id.
The only other question is whether the amount the agreement contemplates Caldwell be
awarded is reasonable. There is no evidence of poor performance or delay by Caldwell.
And Caldwell’s effective hourly rate of $1,149.19 is reasonable based on the work
Caldwell performed and the risk that no benefits would be awarded.
/
/
/
/
Case 2:18-cv-02658-KML Document 28 Filed 01/29/26 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
IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) (Doc.
24) is GRANTED in the amount of $46,258.75.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiff’s counsel shall, after receipt of the above-
awarded fee, refund to plaintiff all fees awarded under the EAJA, in the amount of
$8,164.80.
Dated this 29th day of January, 2026.
Case 2:18-cv-02658-KML Document 28 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 3