Stephen L. Mudd v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• allowing courts to consider work done before the SSA as “one factor” in determining the reasonableness of a fee for court-related work under Section 406(b)
• upholding the district court’s award of $12,231.50 for 16.6 hours of work (effective hourly rate of $736.83)
• interpreting Gisbrecht as establishing that “a reduction in the contingent fee may be appropriate when,” inter alia, “past-due benefits ‘are large in comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case’”
• interpreting Gisbrecht as establishing that “a reduction in the contingent fee may be appropriate when,” inter alia, “past-due benefits ‘are large in comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case’”
• interpreting Gisbrecht as establishing that “a reduction in the contingent fee may be appropriate when,” inter alia, “past-due benefits ‘are large in comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case’”
• interpreting Gisbrecht as establishing that “a reduction in the contingent fee may be appropriate when,” inter alia, “past-due benefits ‘are large in comparison to the amount of time counsel spent on the case’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).