Boylan v. Colvin

Background

Janet Boylan appealed the denial of her applications for disability insurance in 2015. The case was remanded for further administrative proceedings, and an administrative law judge later ruled in Boylan’s favor. The court then granted attorney Howard Olinsky’s request for fees under section 406(b)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act and awarded him $11,322 on September 2, 2020.

Olinsky moved to hold the Commissioner of Social Security in civil contempt of that fee order. He asserted that the Commissioner refused to pay the award and released all past-due benefits to Boylan. The Commissioner opposed the motion, arguing that direct payment was conditional on Olinsky’s compliance with Social Security Administration registration requirements.

The Direct-Payment Requirement

The parties agreed that an attorney seeking direct payment from a claimant’s past-due benefits had to register with the Social Security Administration. The agency identified two required submissions: Form SSA-1699, concerning registration and direct payment, and Form SSA-1695, concerning identifying information for possible direct payment of authorized fees. The opinion notes that Form SSA-1695 and another form were later combined into a revised Form SSA-1696-UF.

Olinsky submitted Form SSA-1699 on May 6, 2020, and the agency acknowledged receiving it. He did not submit Form SSA-1695 with that submission. After the court awarded the fees, the agency sent Olinsky a September 22, 2020 letter stating that its records did not show that he had registered for direct payment. The letter explained that the agency could pay the court-ordered fee only if he registered within 30 days and identified the required forms. On November 3, 2020, the agency notified him that it would not directly pay the fee and would instead release the past-due benefits to Boylan because he had not timely registered.

Court’s Analysis

A civil contempt order requires clear and convincing proof that the alleged contemnor violated a clear and unambiguous court order, that the violation was proven clearly and convincingly, and that the alleged contemnor did not make a diligent, reasonable effort to comply.

The court held that Olinsky failed to provide that proof. Section 406(b)(1)(A) allows the Commissioner to certify a court-approved fee for payment to the attorney from the claimant’s past-due benefits. The court also relied on a Social Security regulation and the agency’s publicly available operating instructions, which stated that an attorney seeking direct payment for court representation had to register through Form SSA-1699 and submit Form SSA-1695. The court rejected Olinsky’s argument that Form SSA-1695 was required only for representation before the agency, stating that the relevant provisions contradicted that interpretation.

The court further held, in the alternative, that Olinsky had not shown that the Commissioner failed to make a diligent effort to comply. The agency notified him of the missing registration requirement, gave him 30 days to complete it, identified the required submission, and provided information about the registration process. After that period passed, the agency released the withheld benefits to Boylan.

Disposition

The court denied Olinsky’s motion to hold the Commissioner in civil contempt in its entirety. The order resolved docket entry number 35.