Guzman-Osorio v. Commissioner of Social Security - DEFENDANT

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 	1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
ANNABELLE GUZMAN-OSORIO,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK J BISIGNANO, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.
CASE NO. 23-1193 (HRV)
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is the “Motion for Authorization of an Attorney Fee
Under Section 206(b)(1) of the Social Security Act” filed by Attorney David Luis Torres-
Velez (“Attorney Torres-Velez”). (Docket No. 31). Attorney Torres-Velez moves the Court
to authorize an award of $25,504.25 in accordance with the contingency fee contract he
had with Plaintiff Annabelle Guzman Osorio. The Commissioner of Social Security
(hereinafter “the Commissioner”) neither supports nor opposes the request. (Docket No.
32). For the reasons set forth below, the motion for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED.
I. 	B ACKGROUND
Plaintiff Annabelle Guzman-Osorio agreed to pay Attorney Torres-Velez 25% of
any 	past-due 	Social 	Security 	Benefits. 	(Docket 	No. 	31-1). 	Attorney 	Torres-Velez
represented Plaintiff before this Court seeking review of an unfavorable decision by the
Commissioner denying her claim of disability benefits. (Docket Nos. 1, 21). After Plaintiff
Case 3:23-cv-01193-HRV Document 34 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 5

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 	2
submitted her brief, on January 12, 2024, the Commissioner filed a consent motion to
remand the case for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). (Docket No. 25). The Court obliged and judgment was entered
accordingly on that same date. (Docket Nos. 26 and 27).
Subsequently, on February 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys’ fees
and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). (Docket No. 28). The
Commissioner responded that the parties had reached a stipulation as to the amount.
(Docket No. 29). The Court awarded counsel $5,402 in attorneys’ fees and costs under
the EAJA. (Docket No. 30). The award was seized, however, through the U.S. Treasury
offset program. (Docket No. 31-2).
On December 14, 2025, Plaintiff received notice that the Commissioner issued a
favorable decision on remand. (Docket No. 31-3). In awarding past due benefits to
Plaintiff, the Commissioner withheld $25,504.25 for attorneys’ fees, calculated to be 25%
of the total amount due. (Id. at 3). Attorney Torres-Velez now requests that the Court
authorize payment of the full amount claiming that it is reasonable given the contingent
nature of the representation, the express contract between counsel and Plaintiff, and the
excellent results obtained. The Commissioner neither supports nor opposes the request.
(Docket No. 32). It merely points out that any EAJA award must be refunded. (Id.).
Attorney Torres-Velez replies that there is nothing to refund because the EAJA award
was retained pursuant to the U.S. Treasury offset program. (Docket No. 33).
II. 	A PPLICABLE L AW
Section 206(b) of the Social Security Act provides that “[w]henever a court
renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this subchapter who was represented
Case 3:23-cv-01193-HRV Document 34 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 5

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 	3
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). Even though the statute does not specify a deadline for requesting
attorneys’ fees, the District of Puerto Rico Local Rules provide that
[a] party seeking attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
406(b) shall have thirty (30) days after counsel’s receipt of the
original, amended, or corrected Notice of Award, or the Social
Security 	Correspondence 	sent 	at 	the 	conclusion 	of 	the
Agency’s past-due benefit calculation, stating the amount
withheld. The Commissioner shall have thirty (30) days after
receipt of the request to respond.
D.P.R. Local Civ. R. 9(d)(2) (March 4, 2022) (Misc. 03-115 (RAM), Docket No. 71-1).
The Supreme Court has held 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 . . . based on the character of the representation and the results
the representative achieved.” Id. at 807-08. Factors relevant to reasonableness include:
(1) whether the attorney’s representation was substandard; (2) whether the attorney was
responsible for any delay in the resolution of the case; and (3) whether the contingency
fee is disproportionately large in comparison to the amount of time spent on the case. Id.
at 808. The claimant’s attorney can also be required to submit a record of the hours spent
representing the claimant and a statement of the lawyer’s normal billing rate for non-
contingency fee cases. Id. “If the benefits are large in comparison to the amount of time
counsel spent on a case, a downward adjustment is similarly in order.” Id. (citations
Case 3:23-cv-01193-HRV Document 34 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 5

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 	4
omitted). And, if Plaintiff’s attorney received fees pursuant to the EAJA, the attorney
must refund to the smaller fee amount to Plaintiff. See Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796.
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Timeliness
There is no dispute that the petition filed by Attorney Torres-Velez is timely. The
Notice of Award letter is dated December 14, 2025. Counsel filed the motion on
December 22, 2025.
B. 	Reasonableness of the Fee Amount
Attorney Torres-Velez asserts that between him and the brief-writing attorney
Heather Freeman, the fee requested equates to an hourly rate of $1,123.54 for 22.7 hours
and is thereby reasonable under the law. (See Docket No. 31 at 6-8). As noted, the
Commissioner does not oppose counsel’s fee amount in this matter. I find that the
requested fee is reasonable.
First, the fee request conforms with the Plaintiff’s contingent fee agreement and
does not exceed the 25 percent statutory limit. Second, Plaintiff’s counsel’s work in this
Court was not substandard. On the contrary, it prompted a motion for remand that
subsequently resulted in a favorable decision at the agency level and an award of past
due benefits. Third, there is no indication of undue delay or improper conduct by counsel.
Finally, the effective hourly rate is consistent with amounts courts in this circuit have
previously deemed reasonable. See, e.g., Alvarez-Roman v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 19-
1780 (BJM), 2025 WL 12998, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40909, at *12-13 (D.P.R. Mar. 5,
2025) (approving de facto rate of $864.52); Piñeiro-Fuentes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No.
18-CV-1556 (MDM), 2023 WL 6605907, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6605907, at *14 (D.P.R.
Case 3:23-cv-01193-HRV Document 34 Filed 01/14/26 Page 4 of 5

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 	5
Oct. 10, 2023) (approving de facto hourly rate of $1,010 for 19.8 hours of work on case
involving post-briefing voluntary remand); Heather C. v. Dudek, No. 22-cv-103-SDN,
2025 WL 1359208, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88674, at *4 (D. Me. May 9, 2025) (approving
a Section 406(b) fee with an effective hourly rate of $2,158.20); Christopher H. v.
Kijakazi, No. 28-cv-00355, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224823, 2022 WL 17668469, at *1 (D.
Me. Dec. 14, 2022) (approving a Section 406(b) fee with an effectively hourly rate of
$1,190.48); Weed v. Colvin, No. 14-cv-271, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92101, 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).
IV. 	C ONCLUSION
Accordingly, the “Motion for Authorization of an Attorney Fee Under Section
206(b)(1) of the Social Security Act” (Docket No. 31), is GRANTED in full and the Court
ORDERS that the amount of $25,504.25 be paid to Attorney Torres-Velez from Plaintiff’s
past-due benefits.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 14th day of January, 2026.
S/Héctor L. Ramos-Vega
HÉCTOR L. RAMOS-VEGA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:23-cv-01193-HRV Document 34 Filed 01/14/26 Page 5 of 5