govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-3_23-cv-00368-0

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
Mary R.1, 
Plaintif
f, 
v. 
COMMI
SSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 
Defend
ant. 
Civil Ac
tion No. 23-00368 (GC) 
MEMO
RANDUM ORDER 
CASTNER, District Judge 
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s counsel Gabriel J. Hermann , 
Esq.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) of the Social Security Act. (ECF 
No. 18.) Defendant filed a response indicating that it neither supports nor opposes the Motion. 
(ECF No. 19.) The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s submission and decides the matter 
without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 78(b) and Local Civil 
Rule 78.1(b). For the reasons set forth below, and other good cause shown, the Motion is 
GRANTED. 
I. BACKGROUND
On August 16, 2023, the Court entered a Consent Order reversing and remanding the Social
Security Administration’s ( SSA) fi nal decision denying Plaintiff’s application for disability 
insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423. (ECF No. 15.) On 
1 The Court identifies Plaintiff only by first name and last initial. See D.N.J. Standing Order 
2021-10. PageID: <pageID>
2 
October 1, 2022, the Court entered an order awarding counsel $6,700.00 in attorney’s fees pursuant 
to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). (ECF No. 17.) The EAJA 
award was made “in full satisfaction of Plaintiff’s petition for the payment of fees, costs, and other 
expenses, made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412.” (Id.) Counsel was also awarded $2 ,750.00 in 
EAJA fees on March 5, 2021, so Counsel’s total EAJA fees amount to $9,450.00. (ECF No. 18-1 
at 2. 2) 
On remand, the Administrative Law Judge issued a favorable decision. (Id.). Of the total 
award, $68,228.35 is being withheld by Defendant for possible attorney’s fees. (Id.) On May 19, 
2025, counsel moved for attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) in the amount of 
$18,228.35, which counsel states represents 25 percent of past due benefits.3 (ECF No. 18-1 at 4.) 
Counsel argues that the fee request is reasonable because counsel “ effectively and efficiently 
represented [P laintiff]” and “ was not responsible for any delays .” ( Id. at 5-6.) Attached to 
counsel’s Motion is a n itemization of services rendered to Plaintiff, which reflects 48.21 hours 
expended by counsel on this action. (Id. at 15.) Counsel also submits a contingency fee agreement 
between Plaintiff and counsel indicating that Plaintiff agreed to a fee equaling twenty-five percent 
of any past-due benefits. (Id. at 8-9.) 
II. DISCUSSION
The attorney’s fees provision of the Social Security Act provides as follows:
Whenever 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 -
2 Page numbers for record cites (i.e., “ ECF Nos.”) refer to the page numbers stamped by the 
Court’s e-filing system and not the internal pagination of the parties. 
3 Given that a $9,450.00 EAJA fee was already awarded by this Court, coun sel states that it 
will return this amount to plaintiff. (ECF No. 18-1 at 2.) PageID: <pageID>
3 
 
due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such 
judgment . . . . 
42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). 
Contingent fee arrangements are “the primary means by which fees are set for successfully 
representing Social Security benefits claimants in court.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 807. The Social 
Security Act “calls for court review of such arrangements as an independent check, to assure that 
they yield reasonable results in particular cases.” Id. There is one firm “boundary line: 
[a]greements are unenforceable to the extent that they provide for fees exceeding 25 percent of the 
past-due benefits . . . . Within the 25 percent boundary, . . . the attorney for the successful claimant 
must show that the fee sought is reasonable for the services rendered.” Id. To determine whether 
a fee award is reasonable, courts within the Third Circuit “have considered the amount of time 
spent on the case, the result achieved, the experience of counsel, the nature of contingent fees and 
the risk of non- recovery, counsel’s typical hourly rate, the EAJA fee previously requested, and 
whether the attorney is responsible for any unreasonable delays in the proceeding.” Leak v. 
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., Civ. No. 11-51, 2017 WL 5513191, at *1 (D.N.J. Nov. 17, 2017) (collecting 
cases). While a l itigant may be awarded fees under both the EAJA and the Social Security Act, 
“the claimant’s attorney must refund to the claimant the amount of the smaller fee, up to the point 
the claimant receives 100 percent of the past-due benefits.” Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796. 
Here, counsel seeks $18,228.35, the maximum twenty -five percent contingent fee, for 
48.21 hours spent litigating Plaintiff’s case. Having considered the relevant factors, the Court 
finds that the requested fee award is reasonable. Counsel obtained a favorable result for his client, 
as the Court reversed and remanded the SSA’s earlier decision. And based on the Court’s review 
of counsel’s itemized invoices (ECF No. 18-1 at 15) and other awards upheld by courts, the Court 
agrees that counsel’s imputed hourly rate ($378.10) and the total contingency fee ($18,228.35) are PageID: <pageID>
4 
also reasonable. See Acosta v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., Civ. No. 22-1454, 2022 WL 1598947, at *1 (3d 
Cir. May 20, 2022) (affirming a contingent fee award of $18,303.25 and an imputed hourly rate of 
$1,070.37); Wells v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., Civ. No. 20-10259, 2024 WL 447768, at *2- 3 (D.N.J. 
Feb. 6, 2024) (finding a contingent fee award of $30,000 and an imputed hourly rate of $1,056.34 
reasonable). 
Moreover, counsel took the representation on a contingency basis, so there was a risk of 
non-recovery. (ECF No. 18-1 at 5). See Rossi v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., Civ. No. 19-08544, 2023 
WL 6533488, at *1 (D.N.J. Oct. 6, 2023) (noting that a “higher contingency fee is reasonable given 
the risk of non- recovery if [the p]laintiff’s claims were unsuccessful”). Finally, there is no 
evidence of delay or other factors that convince the Court it is necessary to reduce counsel’s award. 
Accordingly, the Court finds that, on balance, the present contingent fee arrangement 
comports with § 406(b) and is reasonable. The Court will award c ounsel the twenty-five percent 
of past-due benefits sought and will order counsel to remit to Plaintiff the prior award made under 
the EAJA. 
III. CONCLUSION & ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, and other good cause shown,
IT IS on this 28th day of May, 2026, ORDERED as follows:
1. The Clerk’s Office
 is directed to REOPEN this case for purposes of ruling on this
Motion.
2. The Motion for Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED. Gabriel J. Hermann,
Esq., is awarded attorney’s fees under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b),
in the amount of $18,228.35 (or 25% of past-due benefits due to Plaintiff by reason
of this Court’s judgment, whichever is less). PageID: <pageID> PageID: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight