govinfo:USCOURTS-wiwd-3_22-cv-00527-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN 
  
 
KATHY JO BERRYMAN, 
 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
FRANK J. BISIGNANO, 
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,
1 
 
Defendant. 
OPINION and ORDER 
 
22-cv-527-jdp 
 
 
This is an action for judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s denial of 
Kathy Jo Berryman’s application for disability benefits. After this court reversed and remanded 
the decision of the commission er for further proceedings, Berryman received a favorable 
decision from the commissioner. Vincent Angermeier, counsel for Berryman, moves for a fee 
award under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Dkt. 31. The stat ute allows a prevailing party to recover a 
reasonable fee, but the total amount awarded at the district court and the administrative level 
may not exceed 25 percent of the past benefits awarded. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart , 535 U.S. 789, 
792 (2002). 
In assessing a fee for reasonableness, the co urt starts with the fee specified by the 
contingency agreement between Berryman and her counsel. Arnold v. O’Malley, 106 F.4th 595, 
601 (7th Cir. 2024) (per curiam). In this case, Berryman agreed to pay Angermeier a 
contingency fee of 25 percent of any award of past  benefits that she received. Dkt. 32, Ex. 3. 
 
1 The court has amended the caption to refl ect Frank J. Bisignano’s appointment as 
Commissioner. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). 
Case: 3:22-cv-00527-jdp     Document #: 34     Filed: 06/12/26     Page 1 of 4
2 
 
Berryman was awarded past benefits totaling $ 143,408, Dkt. 32, Ex. 1, at 5, and 25 percent 
of that award is $35,852.2 
The court must determine whether the contingency fee is unwarranted, and thus, should 
be reduced. To make this determination, the court considers factors relevant to the “character 
of the representation and the results the representation achieved.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 808. 
These factors include: 
the claimant’s satisfaction with their attorney’s representation; 
the attorney’s expertise and efforts expended;  
whether the attorney engaged in any undue delay or overreaching;  
the uncertainty of recovery and risks of an adverse outcome; and  
how the effective hourly rate compares to others in the field and 
jurisdiction. 
Arnold, 106 F.4th at 601.  
The court finds no reason to award Angermeier less than the full contingent fee amount 
to which he and Berryman agreed. Neither Be rryman nor the commission has objected to 
Angermeier’s motion. This case involved two remand orders—one issued by the Eastern 
District of Wisconsin, No. 20- cv-692, Dkt. 41, and one issued by this court. Angermeier 
assisted Berryman throughout all this back-and-f orth, and it’s undisputed that he achieved 
good results for his client. Moreover, there’s no evidence that Angermeier’s effective hourly rate 
(about $273) exceeds that charged by other attorneys in the field.
3 The court will approve a 
representative fee in the gross amount of $35,852. 
 
2 Angermeier states that 25 percent of the past -benefits award is $35,382, Dkt. 32, at 1, but 
that is a miscalculation. 
3 Angermeier spent 131.1 hours on this case. Dkt. 32, at 3 n.2. 
Case: 3:22-cv-00527-jdp     Document #: 34     Filed: 06/12/26     Page 2 of 4
3 
 
Angermeier asks the court to  allow him to retain the $26,479.58 that he previously 
received in fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Dkt. 32, at 2.4 When an attorney 
receives fees under both the EAJA and § 406( b), the attorney must refund the smaller fee 
awarded to the claimant. 28 U.S.C. § 2412 note (Savings Provision); see Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. 
at 796; Arnold v. Bisignano , 145 F.4th 768, 770 (7th Cir. 2025). Angermeier proposes 
subtracting the EAJA fees from the gross fee award, which would result in a net fee of 
$9,372.42. Dkt. 32, at 2.5 
To conserve judicial resources, and for efficiency’s sake, the court will subtract from the 
gross amount of representative fees the $26,479.58 that Angermeier received under the EAJA, 
which would otherwise have to be refunded to  Berryman. The net amou nt that should be 
dispersed to Angermeier from Berryman’s past-due benefits is $9,372.42. 
ORDER 
IT IS ORDERED that: 
1. Vincent Angermeier’s motion for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), Dkt. 31, 
is GRANTED. 
2. The court approves representative fees under § 406(b) in the gross amount of 
$35,852. 
3. Angermeier may retain the $26,479.58 previously awarded in EAJA fees in partial 
satisfaction of the § 406(b) award. 
  
 
4 Angermeier received $12,500 in EAJA fees in Berryman v. Kijakazi, No. 20-cv-692 (E.D. Wis.), 
Dkt. 44, and he received $13,979.58 in EAJA fees in this case. 
5 Because of the previously id entified typographical error, Angermeier requests $9,102.42, 
Dkt. 32, at 2, but it is clear that he meant to request $9,372.42.  
Case: 3:22-cv-00527-jdp     Document #: 34     Filed: 06/12/26     Page 3 of 4
4 
 
4. The net amount of $9,372.42 shall be disbursed by the commissioner from any of 
Berryman’s past-due benefits being withheld and in accordance with agency policy. 
Entered June 12, 2026. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
/s/ 
________________________________________ 
JAMES D. PETERSON 
District Judge 
Case: 3:22-cv-00527-jdp     Document #: 34     Filed: 06/12/26     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight