Document: 390 U.S. 530 88 S.Ct. 1146 20 L.Ed.2d 87 Raymond HOPKINS, Petitioner,v.Wilbur J. COHEN, Acting Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. No. 276. Argued March 11 12, 1968. Decided April 2, Allen Sharp, Williamsport, Ind., Harold H. Gearinger, Chattanooga, Tenn., for petitioner. Harris Weinstein, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion Court. 1 The question is whether ceiling on an attorney's few under § 206(b)(1) Social Security Act, as amended,1 79 Stat. 403, 42 U.S.C. 406(b)(1) (1964 ed., Supp. II), based benefits received by claimant alone or may be also that other dependent members his family receive virtue claimant's disability. 2 Respondent ruled petitioner2 was not totally permanently disabled within meaning Act. District Court reversed awarded attorney a fee equal to 25% accruing alone. Appeals Seventh Circuit affirmed. 374 F.2d 726. Because its ruling fees conflicted with decisions Fourth (see Redden v. Celebrezze, 361 815; Lambert 677), we granted petition certiorari. 389 811, 71, 19 67. 3 qualifies 223 Act (42 423 II)) figures primary 215 415 II)). 4 claimants who relatives person 223, figure their eligibility amount 202 402 II); wife, 202(b); child, 202(d); widow, 202(e); widower, 202(f); mother, 202(g); parent, 202(h)). 5 Section describes in (b)(1) (b)(2) payable wife disability husband, (d)(1) (d)(2) child claimant. (§ 202(b) (1)(A)) 202(d)(1)(A)) file these benefits. But they need always do so themselves,3 makes right such primarily status condition those persons. 6 each compute basis percentage share determined 223. See §§ 202(b)(2)4 202(d)(2). maximum benefit depends upon which entitled. 215(a) 203(a). scheme thus proceeds from recognition intimate relationship between varying amounts due dependents. 7 Hopkins receiving payments 1961 December 1962; two children were during this same period dependents recipient 202). In 1962 terminated, ground petitioner no longer 'disabled' Petitioner exhausted administrative remedies, then sought review Court's order decision And pursuant Director Bureau Disability Insurance wrote follows: 8 'Based recent amendments you are entitled $123.10. Your $51.50. These new monthly rates effective beginning January 1965. 9 'Section provides (y)our ask court approve exceed 25 percent past-benefits you. We are, therefore, withholding $936.20, represents your past-due $3,744.00 pending action fee. withheld will applied against set mailed directly attorney; any remaining sent 10 'Benefit continue combined. next husband-wife check $5,032.60. This payment 1963 through You days. After that, regular $174.60 shortly after month it payable. 'The children's 1963, (sic), $3,463.50, shortly. monthly, $103.00 usual.' 12 206(b)(1), restricting fee, speaks 'the entitled.' argues only plaintiff can satisfy description, non-party. It urged joined parties have judgment claimant, 'entitled' 206(b)(1). 13 That seems us too technical construction adopt. instance, proof husband's 'claim'5 results package immediate familyf inure head files 'claim.' 14 legislative history desire Congress reduce 'contingent fee' arrangements restrict 'not excess accrued benefits.'6 find nothing would likewise 'accrued benefits' owed distinguished dependents, viz., children. 15 Reversed. 16 MARSHALL took part consideration case. 17 WHITE, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE BRENNAN join, dissenting. 18 As recognizes, entitles total reason * *.' (Emphasis added.) characterizes normal natural reading language 'too adopt.' From undisputed fact family, conclude read 'claimant' mean 'claimant dependants.' I see justification result, either statute history, dissent. deals respect 'a title represented before more than 'by judgment. *' Only plaintiffs meet definition 'claimant.' Therefore, suit 'claimants,' court, case petitioner, children, below. true most cases, petitioner's separate proceedings eligible secondary 202. Their entitlement should found disputed issue Since sole party lawyer provided representation cannot escape conclusion situation might well different where active well. clear, purpose contingent limiting recoverable attorneys. somehow concludes clear militates wording has result once again permitting attorneys obtain very high claimants. however, supports plain statute. Indeed, fails mention generated initially claim made contract signed given 40% award, effect because entered into prior passage just meant prohibit. By present gives mere lip service mandate while effectively undoing practice. For foregoing reasons respectfully presently provides: 'Whenever renders favorable subchapter attorney, determine allow reasonable representation, judgment, may, notwithstanding provisions section 405(i) title, certify out of, addition to, certified except paragraph.' 'Petitioner,' used opinion, refers Hopkins, interest involved case, reaches proper is, Hopkins' Sharp. CFR 404.603—404.604. Nor required become determination. 405(b) (g); 404.909—404.910; 404.916—404.919; 404.945; 404.951. Amendments 1967 changed former read: 'Except subsection (q), wife's insurance shall whichever following smaller: (A) one-half her husband (or, divorced husband) month, (B) $105.' Pub.L.No. 90—248, 103, 81 821 (Jan. 1968). record reveals initial application payments. Although did encompass behalf applying does appear, filed behalf. n. 3, supra. No raised concerning propriety claims filed. been Rather, had them until terminated respondent's erroneous disabled. When Court, impediment standing way receipt removed. realistic sense, then, representing fully interests when he litigated S.Rep.No. 404, Pt. I, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 122; U.S.Code & Admin.News 1965, p. 2062. 'It come attention committee occasion charged what appear inordinately large Federal district actions arising social security program. Usually, contingent-fee arrangement (frequently one-third one-half) litigation necessarily involves considerable lapse time, many cases benefits, consequently legal fees, if wins bill provide whenever express authority services rendered connection claim;

Category: 5