U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 84— DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER XVI— ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM › Part Part C— Treatment, Coordination, and Forfeiture of Compensation and Benefits

42 U.S.C. § 7385g

Attorney fees

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) General rule

Notwithstanding any contract, the representative of an individual may not receive, for services rendered in connection with the claim of an individual for payment of lump-sum compensation under part B, more than that percentage specified in subsection (b) of a payment made under part B on such claim.

(b) Applicable percentage limitationsThe percentage referred to in subsection (a) is—(1) 2 percent for the filing of an initial claim for payment of lump-sum compensation; and(2) 10 percent with respect to objections to a recommended decision denying payment of lump-sum compensation.(c) Inapplicability to other services

This section shall not apply with respect to services rendered that are not in connection with such a claim for payment of lump-sum compensation.

(d) Penalty

Any such representative who violates this section shall be fined not more than $5,000.

(Pub. L. 106–398, § 1 [div. C, title XXXVI, § 3648], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–511; Pub. L. 107–107, div. C, title XXXI, § 3151(a)(6), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1375.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2001—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–107, § 3151(a)(6)(A), inserted “for payment of lump-sum compensation” after “the claim of an individual”.

Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 107–107, § 3151(a)(6)(B), inserted “for payment of lump-sum compensation” after “initial claim”.

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 107–107, § 3151(a)(6)(C), substituted “with respect to objections to a recommended decision denying payment of lump-sum compensation” for “with respect to any claim with respect to which a representative has made a contract for services before October 30, 2000”.

Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 107–107, § 3151(a)(6)(D), (E), added subsec. (c) and redesignated former subsec. (c) as (d).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 2009–2015 · leading case: Harger v. Dep't of Labor, 569 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harger v. Dep't of Labor, 569 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2009). “” 42 U.S.C. § 7385g(a)-(b). B. On January 6, 2006, attorney Foulds filed an administrative petition “on behalf of a class of workers consisting of all former employees of Du Pont Company working at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation” during the 1943 to 1946 period (“Administrative…”
Opal Harger v. Dep't of Labor, 560 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). “” 42 U.S.C. § 7385g(a)-(b). B. On January 6, 2006, attorney Foulds filed an administrative petition “on behalf of a class of workers consisting of all former employees of Du Pont Company working at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation” during the 1943 to 1946 period (“Administrative…”
Hand v. Perez (D.D.C. 2015). “See 42 U.S.C. § 7385g. On the contrary, as the defendants explain, this section “only sets limits on the amount that may be charged by a representative for services rendered in connection with a claim under Part B [of the Act], and provides a monetary penalty for representatives…”
Opal Harger v. Dep't of Labor (9th Cir. 2009). “” 42 U.S.C. § 7385g(a)-(b). B. On January 6, 2006, attorney Foulds filed an administrative petition “on behalf of a class of workers consisting of all for- mer employees of Du Pont Company working at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation” during the 1943 to 1946 period…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 7385g(a) — 3 cases
Harger v. Dep't of Labor, 569 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2009). “” 42 U.S.C. § 7385g(a)-(b). B. On January 6, 2006, attorney Foulds filed an administrative petition “on behalf of a class of workers consisting of all former employees of Du Pont Company working at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation” during the 1943 to 1946 period (“Administrative…”
Opal Harger v. Dep't of Labor, 560 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2009). “” 42 U.S.C. § 7385g(a)-(b). B. On January 6, 2006, attorney Foulds filed an administrative petition “on behalf of a class of workers consisting of all former employees of Du Pont Company working at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation” during the 1943 to 1946 period (“Administrative…”
Opal Harger v. Dep't of Labor (9th Cir. 2009). “” 42 U.S.C. § 7385g(a)-(b). B. On January 6, 2006, attorney Foulds filed an administrative petition “on behalf of a class of workers consisting of all for- mer employees of Du Pont Company working at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation” during the 1943 to 1946 period…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.