Culbertson v. Berryhill

Attorney Richard Culbertson successfully represented a claimant before the Social Security Administration and in federal court, securing past-due disability benefits. He sought court approval of a fee exceeding 25% of those benefits, arguing that the 25% cap in 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) applies only to court representation and does not impose a cumulative limit together with administrative-level fees under § 406(a). The district court and the Eleventh Circuit rejected this argument, holding that total fees could not surpass 25% of the claimant's past-due benefits. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court reversed, holding that § 406(b) limits only court-representation fees, and no single cap governs the aggregate fees for both agency and court stages. The case was remanded.

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower court, ruling that the 25% cap in § 406(b) applies exclusively to fees for court representation and does not constrain administrative fees under § 406(a). Therefore, separate 25% caps apply to each stage, with no cumulative aggregate limit. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Whether the 25% cap on attorney's fees for court representation in 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) imposes an aggregate limit on the total fees charged for both administrative and court proceedings, or applies solely to fees for court-level work.

The ruling meant disability claimants could be required to pay up to 50% of their past-due benefits in total attorney fees, heightening concerns about reduced recovery for vulnerable individuals. It simultaneously incentivized attorneys to take on complex Social Security cases. The decision sparked calls for legislative reform to clarify aggregate fee limits and better protect claimants' awards.