Legal Document

485 U.S. 74 108 S.Ct. 892 99 L.Ed.2d 68 Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Petitionerv.Mary Alice GALBREATH. No. 86-1146. Argued Dec. 9, 1987. Decided Feb. 24, 1988. Syllabus After the Services denied respondent's application for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under Title XVI Social Security Act, respondent appealed to District Court, which reversed denial awarded her past-due benefits. The court also ordered pay attorney's fees attorney out Court Appeals affirmed. Held: A district does not have authority order withhold a portion SSI payment received in judicial proceedings XVI. Pp. 75-79. 799 F.2d 370 (CA8 1986), reversed. BRENNAN, J., delivered opinion all other Members joined, except KENNEDY, who took no part consideration or decision case. Richard J. Lazarus, petitioner. Anthony W. Bartels, Jonesboro, Ark., respondent. Justice BRENNAN Court. 1 question before us is whether, has fees. 2 Mary Galbreath's she Federal denial, accordingly paid Galbreath full $7,954 attorney, then moved equal 25% determined that amount requested was reasonable and, relying on 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1), "to compute, certify, pay" Bartels his fee $1,988.50 Galbreath. appealed, arguing 406(b)(1) applies only cases II Act relevant statutes regulations do permit withholding cases. Eighth Circuit (1986). We granted certiorari resolve conflict among Courts Appeals,* 481 1036, 107 1970, 95 811 (1987), now reverse. 3 an insurance program. Enacted 1935, it provides old-age, survivor, disability insured individuals irrespective financial need. See §§ 403, 423 (1982 ed. Supp. III). welfare 1972, financially needy are aged, blind, disabled regardless their status. 1382(a) 4 Until 1965, contained provision expressly authorizing award claimant's attorney. In however, Fifth held 405(g) implicitly authorized courts Celebrezze v. Sparks, 342 286 (1965). Under 405(g), reviewing power enter "a judgment affirming, modifying, reversing Secretary." Sparks reasoned where statute gives jurisdiction, must be presumed, absent any indication contrary, intended exercise powers court, including provide recovery. F.2d, at 288-289. Later Congress effectively codified by adding new subsection (b)(1) 406 allows incurred II. Amendments Pub.L. 89-97, 332, 79 Stat. 403. Subsection provides: 5 "Whenever renders favorable claimant this subchapter represented may determine allow as its such representation, excess 25 percent total entitled reason judgment, may, notwithstanding provisions section 405(i) title, certify of, addition to, benefits." 6 1968, amended 406(a) two sentences giving similar administrative proceedings. 1967, 90-248, 173, 81 877. 7 Thus, Court's case would clearly valid if were When enacted provided This omission particularly telling because incorporated many into particular, while incorporating almost every XVI, left withholding. 92-603, 301, 86 1476-1477, 1383(d)(2). appear been inadvertent. Indeed, with respect proceedings, House Report specifically noted explained twice stating: 8 "Where individual hearing . there from individual's Your committee believes contrary purpose program." H.R.Rep. 92-231, pp. 156, 187 (1971), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 4989, 5142, 5173. 9 Senate indicates intentional. S.Rep. 92-1230, p. 392 (1972) ("Where benefits"). Although legislative history offered explanation linked authority, fair assume reflected Congress' view inconsistent Given extreme need beneficiaries, irrational. Nor odd conclude cause greater hardship than thus that, originally enacted, evidenced congressional intent pastdue 10 Respondent finding dispute conclusion disallow when 1972. Rather, they contend possess inherent 1976 amendment 1383(c)(3)—the review XVI—demonstrates exercised. As 1383(c)(3) (1970 ed., IV) provided: 11 "The final determination after paragraph (1) shall subject Section title same extent Secretary's determinations 405 title; fact conclusive court." 1476 (emphasis added). 12 simply deleted italicized statute. Jan. 2, 1976, 94-202, 89 1135. clear expressed make factual findings review, just Nothing mentions below nonetheless II, adjudicating had even added. 13 find analysis unpersuasive. On face, deletion making unreviewable bears apparent relation whether should allowed. purport address involving legal, rather factual, disputes, we can hardly imagine meant change ban without addressing both kinds concluded authorizes rely statements indicating "virtually identical," "provide rights review" Titles, apply rules cases." 94-550, 1, 3-4 (1975), 1975, 2347, 2349, 2350. None these suggests state obvious point removing barring makes scope issues reviewable same. Even assuming cases, see why cannot divest so chooses. enacting manifested intent, selective incorporation history, sees fit override original decision, amending way manifests withholding, stands. 14 Reversed. 15 KENNEDY * Compare Howard Bowen, 823 185 (CA7 1987) (withholding permitted); McCarthy 793 741 (CA6 1986) (same); Motley Heckler, 800 1253 (CA4 (same), Clay 679 (CA1 Reid 735 757 (CA3 1984) below.

Classification Label: 5