## Facts

- Dale Buchanan, an attorney for Social Security disability and SSI claimants, represented five clients in successful claims that produced awards of past-due benefits.
- For three clients, Buchanan used contingency-fee contracts promising a fee of “either 25 percent of the claimants’ back benefits or $1,500, whichever was greater,” payable only upon a favorable determination.
- In each of those three cases, 25% of past-due benefits was less than $1,500; Buchanan petitioned the Social Security Administration for approval of the $1,500 fee.
- The Commissioner authorized fees equal to exactly 25% of past-due benefits rather than the requested $1,500, and the Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge affirmed.
- Buchanan sued in federal district court, alleging on statutory and constitutional grounds that the Commissioner used an improper blanket cap and failed to apply the regulatory, case-specific “reasonableness” factors required for fee determinations.

## Issues

1. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) bars federal court jurisdiction over an attorney’s challenge to the Commissioner’s method for setting administrative attorney’s fees in Social Security matters.
2. Whether mandamus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 is available to compel the Commissioner to follow nondiscretionary statutory and regulatory procedures governing fee determinations.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded.
- The court held that § 405(h) did not bar jurisdiction over Buchanan’s challenge to the Commissioner’s fee-setting method.
- The court held that the district court had mandamus jurisdiction because the complaint plausibly alleged a clear, nondiscretionary duty to follow the fee regulations and no adequate alternative remedy after exhaustion of administrative review.

## Legal Principles

- Section 405(h) does not categorically preclude mandamus jurisdiction when the claim challenges the agency’s compliance with governing procedures and standards, rather than seeking review of benefit entitlement.
- Mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 requires (1) a clear right to relief, (2) a clear, nondiscretionary duty, and (3) no other adequate remedy.
- Federal courts may distinguish between (a) unreviewable attempts to relitigate the discretionary “reasonableness” of a particular fee amount and (b) reviewable claims alleging the agency applied an unlawful blanket policy instead of the legally required individualized framework.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that a Social Security attorney may invoke mandamus to obtain judicial review of an alleged agency-wide failure to apply the fee-setting regulations, and it remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the statutory and constitutional challenges to the Commissioner’s methodology.


Buchanan v. Apfel, 249 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2001)