Term: 2018
Docket: 17-773
Culbertson v. Berryhill
- Pro
17-773 CULBERTSON V. BERRYHILL DECISION BELOW: 861 F.3d 1197 AMY WEIL, ESQUIRE, OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA, IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW. CERT. GRANTED 5/21/2018 QUESTION PRESENTED: "Fees for [the] representation of individuals claiming Social Security old-age, survivor, or disability benefits [at] the administrative and judicial review stages [are handled] discretely: [42 U.S.C.] § 406(a) governs fees for representation in administrative proceedings; § 406(b) controls fees for representation in court.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 793- 794 (2002). Section 406(b) specifies in particular that [w]henever 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-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(l)(A) (emphasis added). The question presented is: Whether fees subject to § 406(b)'s 25-percent cap include, as the Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits hold, only fees for representation in court or, as the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits hold, also fees for representation before the agency. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 16-14004
The case of Culbertson v. Berryhill in 2018 revolved around the interpretation of a federal law that limits attorney's fees for successful representation of Social Security claimants to 25% "of the total of past-due benefits." The question was whether this cap applies only to fees for court representation or also includes agency-level proceedings. Leonard Culbertson, an attorney who represented Katrina Wood in her successful pursuit of disability benefits, argued that it should be interpreted as separate caps: one for agency-level work and another for court-related work. However, Nancy A. Berryhill (Acting Commissioner) contended that the statute imposes a single cap applicable to both levels combined. In a unanimous decision led by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Culbertson’s interpretation stating there are two separate fee assessments - one at each level with their own respective 25% limit from past-due benefits awarded to claimants.
In the case of Culbertson v. Berryhill, there was no dissenting opinion recorded as the decision was unanimous. The Supreme Court Justices agreed that a Social Security claimant's attorney can be awarded fees for representation before both the court and agency below 25% of past-due benefits under sections 406(a) and (b). This ruling overturned an Eleventh Circuit rule limiting total attorney’s fees to 25% only in court proceedings, not at administrative levels.
