Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SNIZASKI v. HECKLER

January 31, 1985

ROSELIA SNIZASKI, Plaintiff
v.
MARGARET HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant. ROBERT J. ANDREWS, Plaintiff v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant. WILLIAM W. GEARY, Plaintiff v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: TEITELBAUM

 Before the Court are petitions for attorney's fees in social security disability cases which raise two issues: 1) are the district courts authorized to award attorney's fees for services before the Social Security Administration; 2) are the fees requested reasonable.

 Services before the agency

 In each case the claimant prevailed before the court and the attorney filed a petition for twenty-five percent (25%) of the past-due benefits for services before the agency and the court. The Secretary takes the position that the district courts lack jurisdiction to award attorney's fees for representation at the administrative level. The Secretary maintains that counsel must petition the Social Security Administration for payment of fees for services provided during administrative proceedings.

 The Social Security Act, as amended in 1968, authorizes the Secretary to set a fee for services before the agency.

 42 U.S.C. § 406(a).

 The Act, as amended in 1965, authorizes the district courts to award a fee for services before the court.

 
Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this subchapter who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment, and the Secretary may . . . certify the amount of such fee for payment to such attorney out of, and not in addition to, the amount of past-due benefits. In case of any such judgment, no other fee may be payable or certified for payment for such representation except as provided in this paragraph.

 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1).

 The Court of Appeals for this Circuit has not decided whether the district courts have the power to award fees for services before the agency. Reid v. Heckler, 735 F.2d 757, 761 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1984). The other Courts of Appeals that have addressed the power of the district courts under section 406 have reached different results. The Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held that the Secretary alone is empowered to award fees for services before the agency. Morris v. Social Security Administration, 689 F.2d 495, 497 (4th Cir. 1982); MacDonald v. Weinberger, 512 F.2d 144, 146 (9th Cir. 1975). The Sixth Circuit has held that the tribunal that ultimately upholds the claim for benefits is the only tribunal that can approve and certify payment of attorney's fees. Webb v. Richardson, 472 F.2d 529, 536 (6th Cir. 1972).

 The district courts in this Circuit, in the reported decisions, have also reached differing results. Oroshnik v. Schweiker, 569 F. Supp. 399, 400 (D. N.J. 1983) held the district courts lack authority to award fees for services before the agency. Kemp v. Schweiker, 587 F. Supp. 778 (W.D. Pa. 1984) followed the Sixth Circuit decision in Webb v. Richardson and found the district courts authorized to award fees for services before the agency. *fn1"

 The statutory language indicates that the district courts do not have authority to award attorney's fees for services before the agency. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) provides "whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant . . . who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such representation . . ." The phrase "such representation" has been held to "obviously mean[] representation before the court." Oroshnik v. Schweiker, 569 F. Supp. at 400-401.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.