Mansfield v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTA MANSFIELD, No. 11-35484
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01427-HA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 11, 2013 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Tim Wilborn, the attorney of record for Marta Mansfield and the real-party-
in-interest, appeals from the district court’s order granting in part his motion for
attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) based on a contingent-fee agreement with
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Mansfield. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse
of discretion, Crawford v. Astrue, 586 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc),
and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by reducing the fees from the
percentage specified in Wilborn’s fee agreement based on the court’s assessment,
under the appropriate legal standard, of what fees were reasonable given the risk
and complexity involved in this case. See id. at 1152-53 (explaining that courts
should assess the complexity and risk involved in the specific case at issue, rather
than social security cases in general, when analyzing the reasonableness of the
requested fees); see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 808 (2002) (“Judges
of our district courts are accustomed to making reasonableness determinations in a
wide variety of contexts, and their assessments in such matters, in the event of an
appeal, ordinarily qualify for highly respectful review.”); Clark v. Astrue, 529 F.3d
1211, 1214 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The district court abuses its discretion if it does not
apply the correct legal standard or rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding
of fact.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-35484