Wood v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
| Decision Date | 26 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-13665, No. 16-13666,No. 16-13664, No. 16-14004,16-13664 |
| Citation | 861 F.3d 1197 |
| Parties | Katrina F. WOOD, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant–Appellee. Celalettin Akarcay, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant–Appellee. Bill J. Westfall, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant–Appellee. Darleen R. Schuster, Plaintiff–Appellant, Richard Allen Culbertson, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant–Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Richard Allen Culbertson, Sarah Patience Fay, Law Office of Richard A. Culbertson, Orlando, FL, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Richard Allen Culbertson, Pro Se.
Rebecca Ringham, Jerome M. Albanese, Nadine DeLuca Elder, Brian C. Huberty, Mary Ann Sloan, Social Security Administration, Atlanta, GA, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, John F. Rudy, III, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, for Defendant–Appellee in 16–13664.
Rebecca Ringham, Jerome M. Albanese, Arthurice Tylune Brundidge, Jennifer L. Patel, Mary Ann Sloan, Douglas Gregory Wilson, Social Security Administration, Atlanta, GA, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, John F. Rudy, III, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, for Defendant–Appellee in 16–13665.
Jerome M. Albanese, Rebecca Ringham, William Lawrence Hogan, John Molinaro, Brian Seinberg, Mary Ann Sloan, Social Security Administration, Atlanta, GA, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, John F. Rudy, III, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, for Defendant–Appellee in 16–13666.
Rebecca Ringham, Jerome M. Albanese, Nadine DeLuca Elder, Megan Elizabeth Gideon, William Lawrence Hogan, Mary Ann Sloan, John C. Stoner, Susan Kelm Story, Richard Harrison Winters, Social Security Administration, Atlanta, GA, John F. Rudy, III, U.S. Attorney's Office, Tampa, FL, for Defendant–Appellee in 16–14004.
Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Richard Culbertson was counsel to the four plaintiffs shown in the caption here, who asked for and were awarded Social Security disability benefits. This appeal consolidates the four cases, and it is about attorney's fees for Mr. Culbertson. To his credit, Mr. Culbertson represented Katrina Wood, Celalettin Akarcay, Bill Westfall, and Darleen Schuster (together, the "claimants") in their successful challenge to the Commissioner of Social Security's decision to deny them disability benefits. After winning for these clients, Mr. Culbertson asked the District Court to award him attorney's fees in all four cases.1
Two statutes govern fees paid to lawyers representing Social Security claimants. First, 42 U.S.C. § 406 allows the Commissioner to set a fee for representation of the claimant at the administrative level, id. § 406(a), and the District Court to set a fee for representation of the claimant in court, id. § 406(b). Second, a claimant can request fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). In this appeal, Mr. Culbertson argues that the District Court did not correctly calculate the fees he is entitled to under these statutes and Eleventh Circuit precedent. After careful consideration, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the decisions of the District Court.2
Mr. Culbertson represented all four of the captioned plaintiffs in appealing the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits to them. He was successful in all four appeals. We will set out a narrative about each of the cases, which is summarized in a chart in section I.E.
The District Court reversed the Commissioner's denial of benefits to Ms. Wood, then remanded her case to the Commissioner. The court later awarded Ms. Wood $4,107.27 in attorney's fees under the EAJA. On remand, the Commissioner awarded Ms. Wood past-due benefits of $30,871 and awarded her child $4,340 as an auxiliary beneficiary. As is customary, the Commissioner withheld 25% of the total award ($8,595.75) to pay attorney's fees. The Commissioner also awarded Mr. Culbertson $2,865 under § 406(a) for representing Ms. Wood at the administrative level.
Mr. Culbertson asked the District Court for attorney's fees of $4,488.48 under § 406(b) for representing Ms. Wood in court. He calculated this figure by subtracting the EAJA award from the 25% of the past-due benefits the Commissioner withheld. The court granted Mr. Culbertson's request in part, but limited his award to $1,623.48. The court declined to pay the full amount requested by Mr. Culbertson because it found he failed to subtract the earlier § 406(a) award in calculating his fees.
As with Ms. Wood's case, the District Court reversed the Commissioner's denial of benefits to Mr. Akarcay and remanded the case back to the Commissioner. The District Court later awarded Mr. Akarcay $3,121.70 in attorney's fees under the EAJA. On remand, the Commissioner awarded Mr. Akarcay past-due benefits of $69,047, withholding the usual 25% ($17,261.75) for attorney's fees.
Mr. Culbertson asked the District Court for permission to charge Mr. Akarcay $14,140.05 in attorney's fees under § 406(b), which was the amount withheld minus the EAJA award. The court denied Mr. Culbertson's request. The District Court reasoned that it could not determine the proper § 406(b) fee award without first knowing the attorney's fee award the Commissioner would grant under § 406(a). The District Court directed Mr. Culbertson to file a renewed motion after the Commissioner determined the § 406(a) fee award.
As with the others, the District Court reversed the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits to Ms. Schuster. The court remanded the case back to the Commissioner and later awarded Ms. Schuster $4,988.17 in EAJA attorney's fees. On remand, the Commissioner awarded Ms. Schuster past-due benefits of $54,382, withholding 25% of the award ($13,595.50) for attorney's fees.
Mr. Culbertson sought $10,707.083 in attorney's fees under § 406(b). The District Court denied Mr. Culbertson's request, again reasoning that it could not decide the proper § 406(b) fee award until the Commissioner awarded attorney's fees under § 406(a). The District Court noted Mr. Culbertson could file a renewed motion after the § 406(a) fees were set.
Again in Mr. Westfall's case, the District Court reversed the Commissioner's denial of disability benefits to him. The court remanded the case to the Commissioner, and awarded Mr. Westfall $2,713.30 in EAJA attorney's fees. On remand, the Commissioner awarded Mr. Westfall past-due benefits of $24,157, withholding 25% ($6,039.25) for attorney's fees.
Mr. Culbertson asked for attorney's fees of $3,325.95 under § 406(b), which was the amount withheld minus the EAJA award. In this case, as in some of the others, the Commissioner had not yet awarded § 406(a) fees. However, in contrast to the other cases, for Mr. Westfall's case, the District Court granted Mr. Culbertson's fee request "provided that counsel is barred from any further request for fees in this matter, pursuant to § 406(a) or otherwise, and counsel for both parties are directed to advise the agency of this preclusion as part of the Court's award." In other words, the District Court awarded Mr. Culbertson his 25% (in combined EAJA and § 406(b) fees), but told him he could not ask for more.
In the Westfall case, the Commissioner filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 motion, asking the District Court to correct a legal error. The Commissioner argued the court erred to the extent it "direct[ed] the Commissioner not to award counsel § 406(a) fees," which is a decision "entrusted by statute exclusively to the Commissioner." The District Court denied the motion, saying its order barred counsel from requesting more fees and "did not purport to direct the Commissioner to take—or not take—any action."
This chart summarizes the past-due benefits awarded and withheld; the attorney's fees awarded and requested; and the relevant District Court order in each claimant's case.
Petitioner Ms. Wood Mr. Akarcay Ms. Schuster Mr. Westfall
Past-Due
Benefits $35,211 $69,047 $54,382 $24,157
Awarded
Past-Due
Benefits $8,595.75 $17,261.75 $13,595.50 $6,039.25
Withheld
(25%)
Amount Mr
Culbertson $8,595.75 $3,121.70 plus $4,988.17 plus $6,039.25
Received future awards future awards
EAJA Award $4,107.27 $3,121.70 $4,988.17 $2,7137.30
§ 406(a)
Award $2,865 Pending Pending N/A
§ 406(b)
Request (% $4,488.48 $14,140.05 $10,707.08 $3,325.95
of Past-Due (12.7%) (20.5%) (19.7%) (13.8%)
Benefits)
District Court
Decision on Awarded Denied request Denied request Awarded
Mr. $1,623.48 and ordered to and ordered to $3,325.95, but
Culbertson's ($4,488.48 refile after refile after barred from
§ 406(b) minus § 406(a) award § 406(a) award seeking further
Request $2,865.00) is set is set fees under
§ 406(a)
We review a district court's decision on attorney's fees for an abuse of discretion. See Watford v. Heckler , 765 F.2d 1562, 1569 n.11 (11th Cir. 1985). The district court's interpretation of a statute, we review de novo . Bergen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. , 454 F.3d 1273, 1275 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
As we've set out above, there are three statutory provisions allowing fees for lawyers representing people claiming Social Security disability benefits. Section 406(a) allows attorney's fees for representation of claimants at the administrative level. 42 U.S.C. § 406(a)(1). Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Chieftain Royalty Co. v. Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-A, L.P.
-
Ringel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
...fees paid for counsel's work performed both at both the administrative level and in federal court. See, e.g., Wood v. Com'r of Soc. Sec. , 861 F.3d 1197, 1205–06 (11th Cir. 2017) (discussing circuit split, reiterating holding that the 25% cap on attorney's fees applies to the aggregate or c......
-
Kirkland v. Berryhill
...of attorney's fees greater than twenty-five percent of the past due benefits received by the claimant.' " Wood v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 861 F.3d 1197, 1205 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Dawson v. Finch, 425 F.2d 1192, 1195 (5th Cir. 1970) (emphasis added)). See also Thomas, 359 F. App'x at 971 (......
-
Madison v. Berryhill
...of attorney's fees greater than twenty-five percent of the past due benefits received by the claimant.' " Wood v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 861 F.3d 1197, 1205 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Dawson v. Finch, 425 F.2d 1192, 1195 (5th Cir. 1970) (emphasis added)). See also Thomas, 359 F. App'x at 971 (......