Culbertson v. Berryhill
139 S. Ct. 517
| SCOTUS | 2019Background
- Culbertson represented Katrina Wood in Social Security disability proceedings before the SSA and in federal court; Wood prevailed and was awarded past‑due benefits.
- The SSA withheld 25% of past‑due benefits (per its policy) to pay attorney fees and separately awarded Culbertson fees under 42 U.S.C. §406(a) for agency representation.
- Culbertson sought a separate §406(b) fee for court representation equal to 25% of past‑due benefits; the District Court reduced that award by the amount already paid under §406(a).
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that §406(b)’s 25% cap applies to the aggregate of fees under §§406(a) and (b), preventing total fees exceeding 25% of past‑due benefits.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on whether §406(b)’s 25% limit applies only to court‑stage fees or to the combined fees for both agency and court representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §406(b)’s 25% cap limits aggregate fees under §§406(a) and (b) | Culbertson: §406(b) limits only court fees; §406(a) separately governs agency fees | Eleventh Circuit / Commissioner: §406(b)’s 25% cap applies to total fees for both stages | The Court held §406(b)’s 25% cap applies only to court representation fees, not the aggregate of §§406(a) and (b) fees |
| Whether statutory withholding practice (one 25% pool) changes statutory meaning | Culbertson: agency withholding policy does not alter distinct statutory provisions | Commissioner/Eleventh Cir.: single 25% withholding implies a cumulative cap | The Court held agency policy of withholding one 25% pool does not alter the statute’s distinct fee provisions or create an aggregate cap |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 (discussing that syllabi/headnotes do not form part of the Court’s opinion)
- Bowen v. Galbreath, 485 U.S. 74 (historical background on Social Security benefits and fee provisions)
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (describing §406(a) as governing agency fees and §406(b) as governing court fees)
- Maracich v. Spears, 570 U.S. 48 (statutory‑interpretation principles and reliance on text and structure)
- Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. en banc rule adopting pre‑1981 Fifth Circuit decisions)
- Dawson v. Finch, 425 F.2d 1192 (Fifth Circuit precedent addressing aggregate fee interpretation)