Kim HACKWELL and Killian, Guthro & Jenson, P.C., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America; Department of Justice; Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General; and Timothy Garren, Director, Torts Branch, Civil Division, and His Successors in Office, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-1509
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
July 5, 2007
491 F.3d 1229
Randolph did not upset the procedures that may be employed following an arrest; it merely suggested that the Fourth Amendment might prohibit a search when evidence shows that the police removed the defendant from the scene to avoid his or her potential objection to the search. Although evidence that the police used an arrest as a tool to avoid a possible objection might trigger Randolph, the bare fact that the police arrested McKerrell and brought him to the police station does not support such a conclusion here.
III. CONCLUSION
The record supports the finding that McKerrell never expressly objected to the search that he now challenges. Additionally, the police removed McKerrell from the scene to complete an arrest, not to stifle his possible objection to the subsequent search, according to findings the record supports. The district court‘s decision to deny the motion to suppress is therefore
AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey Robert White of Center for Constitutional Litigation, P.C., Washington D.C. (J. Keith Killian and Damon J. Davis of Killian, Guthro & Jenson, P.C., Grand Junction, Colorado, with him on the briefs) for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Elizabeth Goitein (Peter D. Keisler and Mark B. Stern, with her on the brief), United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Defendants-Appellees.
Before BRISCOE, HOLLOWAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge.
I. BACKGROUND
On October 15, 1990, Congress enacted the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) to remedy the injustice suffered by those exposed to radiation created by the government‘s atomic-weapons testing during the Cold War. This Act limited the fee a RECA claimant‘s attorney could collect: “Notwithstanding any contract, the representative of an individual may not receive, for services rendered in connection with the claim of an individual under this Act, more than 10 per centum of a payment made under this Act on such claim.” Pub.L. No. 101-426, § 9 (1990).
On July 10, 2000, Congress amended this Act in several ways—one of which was to reduce attorney fees in certain circumstances:
(a) General Rule. Notwithstanding any contract, the representative of an individual may not receive, for services rendered in connection with the claim of an individual under this Act, more than that percentage specified in subsection (b) of a payment made under this Act on such claim.
(b) Applicable percentage limitations. The percentage referred to in subsection (a) is—
- 2 percent for the filing of an initial claim; and
- 10 percent with respect to—
- any claim with respect to which a representative has made a contract for services before the date of the enactment of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000...; or
- a resubmission of a denied claim.
(c) Penalty. Any such representative who violates this section shall be fined not more than $5,000.
On March 23, 2004, in accordance with his authority to “issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out this Act,”
(b) Fees.
(1) Notwithstanding any contract, the attorney of a claimant or beneficiary,
along with any assistants or experts retained by the attorney on behalf of the claimant or beneficiary, may not receive from a claimant or beneficiary any fee for services rendered, including costs incurred, in connection with an unsuccessful claim. (2) Notwithstanding any contract and except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the attorney of a claimant or beneficiary, along with any assistants or experts retained by the attorney on behalf of the claimant or beneficiary, may receive from a claimant or beneficiary no more than 2% of the total award for all services rendered, including costs incurred, in connection with a successful claim.
(3)(i) If an attorney entered into a contract with the claimant or beneficiary for services before July 10, 2000, with respect to a particular claim, then that attorney may receive up to 10% of the total award for services rendered, including costs incurred, in connection with a successful claim.
(ii) If an attorney resubmits a previously denied claim, then that attorney may receive up to 10% of the total award to the claimant or beneficiary for services rendered, including costs incurred, in connection with that subsequently successful claim. Resubmission of a previously denied claim includes only those claims that were previously denied and refiled under the Act.
(4) Any violation of paragraph (b) of this section shall result in a fine of not more than $5,000.
Plaintiff Kim Hackwell is the daughter of a deceased uranium worker who qualifies to receive a payment under the RECA. Ms. Hackwell attempted to hire KGJ, a law firm that represents RECA claimants, to assist her in filing her RECA claim. But KGJ decided not to represent Ms. Hackwell, allegedly because
Subsequently, KGJ and Ms. Hackwell filed a complaint challenging the regulation on several grounds. See infra n. 1. The district court, applying Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), held that the Attorney General‘s interpretation of the RECA‘s attorney-fee limitation is reasonable and consistent with Congress‘s intent. Specifically, the district court concluded that combining costs incurred with payments for services rendered when calculating the limit on an attorney‘s fee is consistent with the RECA‘s purpose to benefit radiation-exposure victims. Indeed, the court reasoned, one section in the RECA forbids the Attorney General from collecting costs incurred in carrying out the Act. The court also noted that several fee-shifting statutes, such as
The district court therefore deferred to the Defendants’ regulation, found that the regulation is consistent with the RECA, and granted the Defendants’
II. DISCUSSION
The Plaintiffs assert that the district court erred in several respects,1 yet our
Neither party has identified, nor have we found, a federal-court decision addressing the issue presented. We hold that the regulation is contrary to the RECA‘s plain language and is therefore invalid.
A. Standard of Review
The legal sufficiency of a complaint is a question of law. Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir.1999). So we review de novo a district court‘s dismissal for failure to state a claim. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim “admits all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as distinguished from conclusory allegations.” Mitchell v. King, 537 F.2d 385, 386 (10th Cir.1976).
B. The Validity of 28 C.F.R. § 79.74(b)
The Supreme Court in Chevron articulated a two-step test for analyzing an agency‘s construction of the statute it administers:
First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue ..., the question for the court is whether the agency‘s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.... Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.
We determine whether Congress had an intent on the question at issue by “employing traditional tools of statutory construction,” id. at 843 n. 9, “includ[ing] examination of the statute‘s text, structure, purpose, history, and relationship to other statutes.” Harbert v. Healthcare Services Group, Inc., 391 F.3d 1140, 1147 (10th Cir.2004).
1. Chevron Step One
a. The Text of 42 U.S.C. § 2210 note Sec. 9
Following the Supreme Court and Harbert‘s prescription to examine the statute‘s language, purpose, history, and relationship to other statutes, we find that the distinction between compensation for “services rendered” and “expenses” is clearly demarcated by common meaning and several federal statutes.
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1750 (2d ed.1987) defines “service” as “an act of helpful activi-
So compensating an attorney for providing legal advice—a service—is distinguishable in meaning from reimbursing an attorney who has incurred a charge for requesting a copy of a document. Indeed, “salary and expenses” would be surplusage if these words were synonyms.
Clearly making this distinction in usage, for example, the bankruptcy court in In re Bicoastal Corp. first rejected a litigant‘s request for fees for services rendered, and then, “because the description of expenses incurred [was] equally vague and nonspecific,” the court separately denied the litigant‘s request for expenses. 118 B.R. 855, 859 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1990). Similarly, the court in In re Three Mile Island Litigation relied on a Third Circuit holding when explaining that “LEXIS charges are a reimbursable expense [,] not attorneys’ hours,” clearly making a distinction between calculating reimbursable expenses and evaluating the hours and services that formed the basis for the attorneys’ fees for services. 557 F.Supp. 96, 109 (D.C.Pa.1982) (emphasis in original). Further illuminating this distinction, the court excluded any reference to expenses when the court stated that it had asked the plaintiff to submit evidence of “each document filed, each deposition involving participation by counsel for plaintiff, each conference attended, [and] each court hearing ...” before it would evaluate the attorneys’ claimed hours and the nature of the services performed. Id. at 108.
Applying these definitions to the RECA supports the Plaintiffs’ position. An attorney representing a RECA claimant will provide several services, including filling out the required forms, searching for particular documents, and providing the client with information about the claims process. An attorney who completes these actions has performed duties for his or her client. One could not plausibly suggest that, for example, filling out or searching for a document to support the client‘s claim is an expense.2 This is the service for which the attorney was hired. Equally true according to common usage is that an attorney incurs an expense when charged a fee for photocopying a document. We cannot agree as a matter of plain meaning that when an attorney incurs such an expense
The dissent finds this English lesson unpersuasive because the service being rendered might be the completion of a RECA application, which could involve procuring medical reports or other documents. Dissent, infra, at 1242. So “[w]hen a client subsequently repays an attorney for the expenses incurred in procuring this supporting documentation, [she reasons,] the attorney has received a payment for the service rendered of compiling that documentation.” Id. This conclusion apparently derives, at least partly, from the premise that expending money to procure the necessary supporting documentation is an “inseparable” and “necessary” component of the service rendered. Id.
There are at least two problems with this analysis. Applying the meanings of “expenses” and “services,” meanings we derive from the dictionary, common usage, treatises on attorney fees, legal history, other statutes, and the function of this Act, we conclude that reimbursing an attorney for an expense (e.g., the charge an attorney incurs when making a photocopy) means something different from paying an attorney for his or her services (e.g., taking the time to decide what needs to be photocopied and taking the time to photocopy). So the first problem with the dissent‘s analysis is that the dissent‘s example provides no substantive support for the idea that the client pays the attorney for a service when the client reimburses the attorney for an expense, other than offering the idea that incurring expenses is an inseparable and necessary part of providing the service. But this raises a second problem: expending money toward an expense will almost always be inseparable from and necessary to provide the service. As we explain later, tort attorneys who decide to forgo a medical opinion of their injured clients to prove the clients’ injuries and damages, and, likewise, social-security attorneys who refuse to expend money to receive a doctor or occupational expert‘s opinion about their clients’ residual functional capacities, will almost certainly find themselves delivering low-quality (if not negligent) legal services. Put otherwise, incurring expenses is virtually always necessary to provide a service. The dissent errs by relying on this temporal claim (i.e., when you find services, you will usually find expenses)—which is derived from the Attorney General‘s observation that obtaining and submitting necessary documentation largely describes a RECA attorney‘s services—to transform these distinct words into one. The mere fact that one (i.e., incurring expenses) is the precondition of the other (i.e., performing a service), however, does not merge their meanings. Maybe they are inseparable in fact—you might not find one without the other—but this is true of several concepts that we understand as distinct.
While there is no per se rule of statutory interpretation that identical words used in different statutes are intended to have the same meaning, we will nevertheless look at a statute‘s “relationship to other statutes” to determine Congress‘s intent. Harbert, 391 F.3d at 1147. Like the dissent, we understand that a dictionary definition, standing alone, is not necessarily dispositive. See dissent, infra, at 1242-43. Here, however, the distinction in meaning between compensation for “services rendered” and “expenses” is further exemplified by several federal statutes.
Under
In
Finally, although we recognize that the Social Security Act in
The RECA‘s text and Congress‘s consistent, repeated distinction between “services rendered” and “expenses” demonstrates Congress‘s intent to exclude expenses from the attorney-fee limitation. Applying the Defendants’ interpretation of the RECA would require a finding that the above statutes unnecessarily address “expenses” and “services rendered” separately. Put differently, if “services rendered” includes expenses, then it would appear that Congress used redundant language when enacting the several provisions that clearly distinguish between compensation for services rendered and reimbursement for expenses incurred. Since “words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning” at the time Congress enacted the statute, Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979), and since “we should give effect, if possible, to [a statute‘s] every clause and word,” Toomer v. City Cab, 443 F.3d 1191, 1194 (10th Cir. 2006), we find that “services rendered” plainly excludes “costs incurred.”
The dissent argues that these statutes and other examples of common usage could point our analysis in the opposite direction. Dissent, infra, at 1242-43. She so concludes because Congress distinguished between expenses and services in those circumstances, but has not similarly done so here. Id. This argument is unpersuasive. The author of every statute and case we cite used “services” and “expenses” separately to outline affirmatively what the service provider could properly include on his or her billing statement. These examples demonstrated that when Congress, and ordinary speakers of English, speak about payment, “services” and “expenses” have different meanings—or else the repeated statements that the attorney may be reimbursed for expenses and paid for services would amount to surplusage. The fact that we do not find the same “services and expenses” language in this statute makes its meaning clearer, contrary to the dissent‘s position, when we understand the context in which the “services rendered” language appears here. Most important, the statutory section at issue does not catalog the list of charges an attorney may bill to his or her client. Instead, the section addresses what charges are subject to the 2% fee cap. When Congress repeatedly states that an attorney may recover “expenses” and receive a fee for “services,” but in this statute decided to omit “expenses” from a provision imposing a 2% fee cap on “services,” Congress made the precise distinction the dissent finds lacking. Just as a decision to eliminate “services” from a statute saying “you may be reimbursed for expenses” would count as strong evidence that the statute required an attorney to donate his or her time, a statute that imposes a fee cap only on services clarifies, not clouds, the decision to exclude expenses from the limitation.
b. The Purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 2210 note Sec. 9
The RECA‘s text, in light of the words’ meanings and other federal statutes, shows that Congress intended to exclude expenses from compensation for “services rendered” when creating the RECA‘s attorney-fee limitation. While we need not proceed further to determine Congress‘s intent, our review of the RECA‘s legislative history and purposes buttresses our conclusion that Congress intended to give the RECA‘s words their ordinary meaning.
Congress‘s intent would be frustrated if we accepted the Defendants’ interpretation of “services rendered.” The Defendants suggest that Congress intended to reduce the number of attorneys involved in submitting RECA claims and that the agency often provides claimants with the documents necessary to support their claims. If “services rendered” includes expenses, however, an attorney would represent a client only when the expense of doing so is lower than the fee the attorney could collect out of the client‘s payment from the government (unless we assume that Congress intended to draft the RECA as a pro bono statute—a suggestion the Defendants denied in oral argument). Since the RECA only provides for payments of $50,000 to $100,000, depending on the severity of the claimant‘s exposure to radiation, and since the Defendants seek to include the attorney‘s expenses within the attorney‘s maximum compensation (in many cases a 2% maximum, so either a $1,000 or $2,000 fee, including expenses), an attorney is likely to represent a RECA claimant only when the agency bears most of the client‘s expenses by providing the documentation necessary to support the client‘s claim.
Thus, the Defendants’ interpretation provides an incentive for attorneys to represent RECA claimants only when the at-
For these reasons, this regulation hardly counts as a “close examination of the interests at play,” see dissent, infra, at 1243, when Congress drafted the statute. If Congress was skeptical “as to the value that attorneys actually bring to this particular process,” id., then Congress would not have incentivized attorneys to represent RECA claimants only when the claimants are least in need of an attorney. Indeed, the Defendants’ interpretation in
The Defendants and the district court also err by relying on the incomplete view that Congress designed the RECA fee limitation to avoid claimants’ payments from being diverted to non-claimants. To be sure, the RECA provision that “[n]o costs incurred by the Attorney General in carrying out this section shall be paid from the Fund ...” reflects Congress‘s intent to avoid diverting money from the fund back to the government (which is perfectly sensible since but for the Government‘s wrongdoing we would not need the RECA).
Nor does Congress‘s intent on this point harmonize with the perverse incentives that the Defendants’ interpretation creates. Indeed, Congress‘s intent to avoid diversion of fund money runs counter to
c. Defendants’ Additional Arguments for Affirmance
The Defendants urge us to defer to their construction of the statute for two additional reasons: first, they say that the RECA attorney-fee limitation is subject to more than one interpretation because courts have interpreted the fee-shifting provision of
The Defendants’ second contention elides the point of the Plaintiffs’ argument. The essence of this professional-responsibility rule is that an attorney was permitted to advance a client‘s expenses in the form of an interest-free loan so long as the client reimbursed the attorney when the attorney finished representing the client. The Plaintiffs are plainly arguing that, in light of this general rule that an attorney may not assume a client‘s expenses, to equate an interest-free loan that must be reimbursed with a fee for services rendered is to deny these words their ordinary meaning.
The Plaintiffs’ argument is supported by several scholarly sources that clearly distinguish expenses and fees, therefore further underscoring the historical and lexical distinction between a fee for services rendered and reimbursement for costs incurred. See, e.g., Restatement (Third) of Law Governing Lawyers § 38 cmt. e (2000) (stating that “[u]nder generally prevailing practice, the actual amount of disbursements to persons outside the office are charges in addition to the lawyer‘s fee” and that “[c]ourt costs and expenses of litigation ... are normally payable by clients”) (emphasis added); Robert L. Rossi, 1 Attorneys’ Fees § 1:27 (3d ed.2006) (stating that “[t]he client, and not the attorney, is ultimately liable for the reasonable and proper expenses incurred incident to the preparation and trial of a case, and thus an attorney may bind his client to pay for such expenses incurred by the attorney”).
Even a common-law action for recovering a money debt recognized that owing another for work done is different from owing another for money paid: “In the action of assumpsit, these [common counts inserted in a declaration in an action to recover a money debt] are as follows: ... for work done; ... for money paid....” Black‘s Law Dictionary 419 (4th ed.1968) (supplying the definition of “[c]ommon counts”). We could not merge these historically distinct concepts—paying another for the work he or she has done (i.e., the service) versus paying another for the money he or she has paid (i.e., the expense)—without ignoring the principle that words in a statute carry their ordinary meaning.
Notwithstanding both this historical backdrop and the dictionary‘s support for this argument, the district court rejected it because of the court‘s view that several jurisdictions have jettisoned the rule of champerty. The status of the rule of champerty, however, does not alleviate the problem with treating words that are historically different in meaning as synonyms. The rule‘s formulation clearly distinguishes between an attorney‘s fee for services and the reimbursement for expenses incurred incident to providing those services. The rule, regardless of its current prevalence in States’ professional-responsibility codes, highlights the fact that a fee for services rendered is not the equivalent of reimbursement for costs incurred.
After rejecting this argument, the district court found traction in the Defendants’ position that the RECA is analogous to fee-shifting statutes that include costs as part of the attorneys’ fees. The court first reasoned that the Defendants’ interpretation reflects Congress‘s unambiguous intent because “Congress did not limit its language to exclude attorneys’ expenses and include only attorneys’ hourly wages.” Dist. Ct. Order at 13. Yet the district court failed to recognize that neither did Congress expressly expand the fee limitation to apply to attorneys’ expenses as well as attorneys’ hourly wages—unless “services rendered” unequivocally means one
As only the Plaintiffs have recognized, however,
Moreover, it is irrelevant here that both the RECA and the
The function of
Again without referring to the RECA‘s language, the Defendants further support their arguments by claiming that the expenses incurred by a RECA claimant‘s attorney are necessary for the attorney to
Procuring documents and hiring experts to give their opinions, and incurring the resulting expenses, are essential parts of representing a client in almost any area of law. Yet common meaning and the above federal statutes still maintain a clear distinction between compensation for “services rendered” and reimbursement for “expenses.” The Defendants’ assertion that attorneys’ expenses are especially essential in RECA claims is unpersuasive and certainly does not support altering the ordinary meaning of Congress‘s words.
Since we assume that Congress intended the words in the RECA to carry their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning, and since our review of the statute‘s text, purpose, and legislative history provides no indication that Congress intended to deviate from its longstanding distinction between and the common meaning of compensation for “services rendered” and reimbursement of “expenses,” we conclude that
2. Chevron Step Two
The Supreme Court‘s Chevron decision explains that we must determine whether the regulation is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the statute only if Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-44. Since the plain meaning of “services rendered” reveals Congress‘s unambiguous intent to exclude expenses from the attorney-fee limitation, our inquiry ends at Chevron‘s first step.
The Defendants’ interpretation of the RECA‘s attorney-fee limitation,
BRISCOE, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the district court‘s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedures Act and Fifth Amendment claims. I disagree with the majority‘s conclusion that the phrase “services rendered” contained in
As the majority‘s opinion correctly notes, the two-step analysis outlined in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) determines the outcome of this case. The first Chevron step requires us to ask “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at
Looking first at the statute‘s plain text, RECA neither defines “services rendered” nor makes clear that compensation for “services rendered” would include expenses. The statute is simply silent as to what activities Congress would include within its definition of “services rendered.” The majority is correct that “services rendered” could be interpreted to mean only those actions involving legal skills, such as filling out forms, obtaining the proper supporting documents, and providing legal advice. At the same time, the defendants are also correct that the term might additionally include the expenses incurred in the preparation of a RECA claim. If the “service” being “rendered” is the preparation of a complete RECA application, then obtaining necessary documentation and medical reports to prove injury is an inseparable and necessary component of that service. When a client subsequently repays an attorney for the expenses incurred in procuring this supporting documentation, then the attorney has received a payment for the service rendered of compiling that documentation. The statute fails to directly address which view of “services rendered” is correct, either by defining the term or contrasting it with expenses. While the majority doubts whether RECA‘s “services rendered” language can be plausibly interpreted to include expenses incurred in obtaining necessary documentation, its skepticism rests mainly on its interpretation of the term “service” as excluding expenses incurred in obtaining necessary documentation, and that a contrary interpretation of the term “service” will have negative policy consequences. The majority‘s interpretation of “service,” while reasonable, does not rest upon any express statement of congressional intent.
Nor does the statute‘s legislative history furnish the necessary clarity. The congressional reports and debates accompanying RECA fail to tackle this issue or shed light on how Congress would resolve the differing interpretations proffered by the parties. Further, the statute‘s purpose—“to make partial restitution” to victims of radiation exposure—points in no clear direction. The majority‘s interpretation of “services rendered” may promote that goal by increasing the likelihood that individuals wishing to file a RECA claim will have access to effective counsel. While at the same time, the defendants’ interpretation of “services rendered” may also further that goal by ensuring that victims receive ninety-eight percent of their award without qualification. Therefore, because the phrase “services rendered” is subject to differing interpretations, it is ambiguous and the proper course is to defer to the agency‘s interpretation if it is reasonable. Bd. of County Comm‘rs v. United States EEOC, 405 F.3d 840, 845 (10th Cir.2005).
To fill the definitional void presented, the majority relies on two sources. First, it points to dictionary definitions. Second, it points to other fee-shifting statutes. As regards the dictionary definitions, the ma-
If our responsibility under Chevron‘s initial step was to give meaning to an unclear statutory phrase, I might find the majority‘s analysis compelling. Instead, our task is to determine whether “services rendered” unambiguously conveys congressional intent regarding the treatment of expenses within the RECA‘s statutory framework. It is true that the ordinary meaning of words, as embodied in dictionary definitions, may provide “some guidance” as to what Congress intended. Anderson v. United States DOL, 422 F.3d 1155, 1180-82 (10th Cir.2005). Yet we have never held that a dictionary definition, standing alone, will control when Congress has otherwise failed to make its intent known. See, e.g., id. at 1182 (determining that the phrase “authorized representative” was “far from clear” because the phrase‘s plain meaning, as discovered in dictionaries, failed to answer the issue before the court); Biodiversity Legal Found. v. Babbitt, 146 F.3d 1249, 1254 (10th Cir.1998) (concluding that the phrase “‘maximum extent practicable’ ... remain[ed] ambiguous because neither the statutory language nor its ordinary meaning specifie[d]” what Congress meant). While a dictionary definition may allow us to make an educated guess about Congress’ intent, the statute‘s essential opacity prevents us from reaching a more definitive conclusion.
The majority next compares § 2210 to other fee-shifting statutes which clearly make a distinction between “services rendered” and “expenses.” For instance,
As § 2210 is ambiguous, the Attorney General‘s regulation,
In addition, the challenged regulation is based on close examination of the interests at play. The Attorney General concluded that allowing full recovery of costs and expenses would compensate attorneys for services—such as gathering necessary documentation—that the Department of Justice already provides to claimants. Id. As a result, the import of the challenged regulation is to maximize the award given to claimants or eligible beneficiaries. Id. The challenged regulation also expresses skepticism, apparently shared by Congress, as to the value that attorneys actually bring to this particular process. Id.
Because
BRISCOE
CIRCUIT JUDGE