Culbertson v. Berryhill
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 8, 2019 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- January 8, 2019
- Term
- October Term 2018
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Thomas
- Issue area
- Attorneys
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Federal law regulates the fees that attorneys may charge Social Security claimants for representation before the Social Security Administration and a reviewing court. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 406(a) - (b). The question in this case is whether the statutory scheme limits the aggregate amount of fees for both stages of representation to 25% of the claimant's past-due benefits. Because § 406(b) by its terms imposes a 25% cap on fees only for representation before a court, and § 406(a) has separate caps on fees for representation before the agency, we hold that the statute does not impose a 25% cap on aggregate fees. I A Title II of the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 622, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq .,"is an insurance program" that "provides old-age, survivor, and disability benefits to insured individuals irrespective of financial need." Bowen v. Galbreath, 485 U.S. 74, 75, 108 S.Ct. 892, 99 L.Ed.2d 68 (1988). A claimant's application for Title II benefits can result in payments of past-due benefits-i.e., benefits that accrued before a favorable decision, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1703 (2018)-as well as ongoing monthly benefits, see 42 U.S.C. § 423(a). A claimant who has been denied benefits "in whole or in part" by the Social Security Administration may seek administrative review of the initial agency determination, § 405(b), and may then…
Excerpt of a 15,278-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.