Moriarty v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 664

Moriarty represented a client in an SSI claim in 2012 under a fee agreement permitting up to 25% (or statutory max) of past-due benefits.
In 2013 the SSA awarded $16,699.02 in federal and federally administered state back payments, which included Massachusetts state payments prior to 2012.
Massachusetts began administering its own state supplements in April 2012, after which state supplements were no longer included in past-due benefit calculations for attorney fees.
The SSA concluded past-due benefits for fee purposes must exclude state-administered supplements when calculating fees.
Moriarty sued for declaratory relief and mandamus; the district court granted summary judgment for the Commissioner.
Statutory framework: 42 U.S.C. § 1383(d)(2)(B) requires fee payment “out of such past-due benefits,” and 1382e governs state supplements; there is ambiguity whether state supplements are included in “past-due benefits.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether state-administered state supplements are included in past-due benefits for attorney fees.	Moriarty contends inclusion under 1383(d)(2)(B) should cover all past-due benefits, including state-administered supplements.	Commissioner argues past-due benefits must be based on funds the SSA controls, excluding non-federally administered state supplements.	Yes; Commissioner may exclude state-administered supplements from past-due benefits.
Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the fee-amount issue.	Moriarty challenges the jurisdictional limits under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(h) and 406(a)(3).	District court jurisdiction exists; appellate review follows if final.	The court may bypass the narrow jurisdiction question and decide on the merits.
Whether the Commissioner’s interpretation of ‘past-due benefits’ is entitled to Chevron deference and is reasonable.	Moriarty argues the plain text supports including state supplements as past-due benefits.	Commissioner contends interpretation is a permissible construction given administrative simplicity and SSA control limits.	Commissioner’s interpretation is reasonable under Chevron steps.

Bowen v. Galbreath, 485 U.S. 74 (1988) (omission of fee withholding historically tied to SSI purpose)
Parella v. Ret. Bd. of R.I. Emps.' Ret. Sys., 173 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 1999) (jurisdictional questions and statutory interpretation considerations)
Royal Siam Corp. v. Chertoff, 484 F.3d 139 (1st Cir. 2007) (jurisdictional and statutory interpretation guidance in the First Circuit)
Splude v. Apfel, 165 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 1999) (SSA deference and agency interpretation considerations)
Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, 134 S. Ct. 2191 (2014) (administrative simplicity and deferential review in fee contexts)