Hopkins v. Cohen/Opinion of the Court

The question is whether the ceiling on an attorney's few under § 206(b)(1) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 79 Stat. 403, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1) (1964 ed., Supp. II), is based on the benefits received by the claimant alone or may be based also on the benefits that other dependent members of his family receive by virtue of the claimant's disability.

Respondent ruled that petitioner was not totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of the Act. The District Court reversed and awarded the claimant's attorney a fee equal to 25% of the benefits accruing to the claimant alone. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. 374 F.2d 726. Because its ruling as to attorney fees conflicted with decisions of the Fourth Circuit (see Redden v. Celebrezze, 361 F.2d 815; Lambert v. Celebrezze, 361 F.2d 677), we granted the petition for certiorari. 389 U.S. 811, 88 S.Ct. 71, 19 L.Ed.2d 67.

The disabled claimant qualifies under § 223 of the Act (42 U.S.C. § 423 (1964 ed., Supp. II)) and figures his primary benefits under § 215 of the Act (42 U.S.C. § 415 (1964 ed., Supp. II)).

The claimants who receive benefits as relatives of the disabled person who qualifies under § 223, figure their eligibility and amount of benefits under § 202 of the Act (42 U.S.C. § 402 (1964 ed., Supp. II); wife, § 202(b); child, § 202(d); widow, § 202(e); widower, § 202(f); mother, § 202(g); parent, § 202(h)).

Section 202 of the Act describes in (b)(1) and (b)(2) the benefits payable to the wife on the disability of the husband, and in (d)(1) and (d)(2) the disability benefits of the child of the disabled claimant. The wife (§ 202(b) (1)(A)) and the child (§ 202(d)(1)(A)) may file for these benefits. But they need not always do so themselves, for the Act makes the right to such benefits dependent primarily on the status and condition of those dependent persons.

The wife and child each compute their benefits on the basis of a percentage share of the disabled claimant's primary benefits determined under § 223. See §§ 202(b)(2) and 202(d)(2). The maximum family benefit depends upon the amount of the primary benefit to which the disabled claimant is entitled. See §§ 215(a) and 203(a). The scheme of the Act thus proceeds from a recognition of an intimate relationship between the varying amounts of benefits due the disabled claimant and his dependents.

Hopkins was receiving disability payments under § 223 between March 1961 and December 1962; his wife and two children were also receiving benefits during this same period as dependents of a recipient of disability payments (§ 202). In December 1962 these benefits were terminated, on the ground that petitioner was no longer 'disabled' within the meaning of the Act. Petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies, and then sought review in the District Court. The District Court's order reversed the administrative decision as to disability. And pursuant to this order the Director of the Bureau of Disability Insurance wrote petitioner as follows:

'Based on the recent amendments to the Social Security Act,     you are entitled to receive $123.10. Your wife and the two     children are each entitled to receive $51.50. These new     monthly rates are effective beginning January 1965.

'Section 206(b)(1) of the Social Security Act provides that     (y)our attorney may ask the court to approve a fee not to      exceed 25 percent of past-benefits due you. We are,     therefore, withholding the amount of $936.20, which      represents 25 percent of your past-due benefits of $3,744.00      pending action by the court on the amount of the attorney      fee. The amount withheld will be applied against the fee set     by the court and will be mailed directly to your attorney;      any remaining amount will be sent to you.

'Benefit payments for you and your wife will continue to be     combined. The next husband-wife check will be for $5,032.60. This represents payment for January 1963 through December     1965. You will receive this check within a few days. After     that, the regular monthly check for $174.60 will be sent      shortly after the month for which it is payable.

'The children's check for the period of January 1963 through     December 1963, (sic), in the amount of $3,463.50, will be      sent to you shortly. After that, their monthly, regular check     for $103.00 will be sent to you as usual.'

Section 206(b)(1), restricting the amount of an attorney's fee, speaks of 'the past-due benefits to which the claimant is entitled.' Respondent argues that only a plaintiff can satisfy such a description, not a non-party. It is also urged that dependents who are not joined as parties have not received a judgment and that the benefits accruing to the wife and the children are not benefits to which the husband, the only claimant, is 'entitled' within the meaning of § 206(b)(1).

That seems to us to be too technical a construction of the Act which we need not adopt. In this instance, proof of the husband's 'claim' results in a package of benefits to his immediate familyf and those benefits inure to the benefit of the head of the family who files the 'claim.'

The legislative history of § 206(b)(1) speaks of the desire of Congress to reduce 'contingent fee' arrangements and to restrict an attorney's fee to an amount 'not in excess of 25 percent of accrued benefits.' We find nothing in the history of § 206(b)(1) that would likewise restrict those 'accrued benefits' to amounts owed the claimant, as distinguished from his dependents, viz., the wife and the children.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Mr. Justice WHITE, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BRENNAN join, dissenting.