Legal Opinion
Culbertson v. Berryhill
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided January 8, 2019No. 17–773PublishedCited by 614 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Thomas
Federal law regulates the fees that attorneys may charge Social Security claimants for representation before the Social Security Administration and a reviewing court. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 406 (a) - (b). The question in this case is whether the statutory scheme limits the aggregate amount of fees for both stages of representation to 25% of the claimant's past-due benefits. Because § 406(b) by its terms imposes a 25% cap on fees only for representation before a court, and § 406(a) has separate caps on fees for representation before the agency, we hold that the statute does not impose a 25% cap on…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Larry Bonner v. City of Prichard, AlabamaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1981
- Gisbrecht v. BarnhartSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Maracich v. SpearsSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free TrustSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by614 opinions
- Sinkler v. BerryhillCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019
- Kathleen O'Donnell v. Andrew SaulCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2020
- Rachel Post v. Trinity Health-MichiganCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2022
- Marasco & Nesselbush, LLP v. CollinsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2021
- Jason Kertz v. Carolyn W. ColvinCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2025
609 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.