76 F. Supp. 3d 261
D. Mass.2014Background
- Plaintiff Marshall T. Moriarty is an attorney who represented an SSI claimant and received a 25% fee calculated only on federally administered past-due SSI benefits; he seeks the additional 25% of the retroactive state supplement that became state-administered after Massachusetts withdrew from federal administration.
- In April 2012 Massachusetts switched from federally administered state supplements to state administration; the retroactive award to the claimant spanned both periods.
- The SSA pays attorneys 25% of "past-due benefits" in SSI cases; its regulation defines "past-due benefits" to include federally administered state payments but excludes state-administered supplements (20 C.F.R. § 416.1503).
- Plaintiff requested an additional $324.85 (25% of the state-administered portion) after the SSA paid only on the federal and federally-administered amounts; SSA replied that state-administered supplements are not included in "past-due benefits."
- The parties cross-moved for summary judgment; the central legal question is whether the SSA permissibly excludes state-administered supplements from the 25% fee base.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "past-due benefits" for §406/§1383(d)(2)(B) includes state-administered state supplements | "Past-due benefits" unambiguously includes all Title XVI benefits, so counsel is entitled to 25% of state-administered supplements | The statute is ambiguous on state-administered supplements; the SSA reasonably excludes them from "past-due benefits" and the regulation is entitled to Chevron deference | Court: statute ambiguous; SSA's interpretation is permissible and reasonable; excludes state-administered supplements |
| Whether the SSA can be compelled to withhold/pay 25% of state-administered supplements | SSA should be ordered to include those amounts in fee withholding | SSA cannot withhold/pay amounts it does not administer and doing so would interfere with states' control and exceed agency authority | Court: SSA cannot be compelled to withhold/pay state-administered supplements; mandamus relief denied |
| Whether alternative means (client or state paying counsel) are barred by SSA pronouncements | Counsel may collect remaining fee from client or state despite SSA position | SSA asserts such allocations would violate fee rules if they caused total fee to exceed authorized amount | Court: Whether private/state arrangements are lawful not resolved here—no parties or concrete dispute presented; issue remains open |
| Whether accepting SSA interpretation leads to absurd results | Inclusion of state supplements is equitable and avoids undercompensating counsel | Excluding state-administered supplements is practically necessary because SSA lacks information and authority to withhold; inclusion would impose duties on states beyond Congress's grant | Court: Excluding state-administered supplements avoids impractical and potentially ultra vires results; not absurd |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes entitled to deference)
- Bowen v. Galbreath, 485 U.S. 74 (historical background on SSI attorney fee withholding differences from SSDI)
- Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 856 F.2d 338 ( First Circuit recognizing ambiguity in "past-due benefits" contexts and deference to SSA fee regulations)
- Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (agency cannot act beyond Congressional delegation and pre-empt state authority)
- Boivin v. Black, 225 F.3d 36 (avoidance of absurd statutory results)
- Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. v. United States, 391 F.3d 338 (courts may not impose administrative procedures beyond statutory mandates)