Catherine G. Ratliff v. Michael J. Astrue

Eighth Circuit

Catherine G. Ratliff v. Michael J. Astrue

425 F. App'x 525

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 12, 2011

Docket07-2317

StatusUnpublished

This text of 425 F. App'x 525 (Catherine G. Ratliff v. Michael J. Astrue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Catherine G. Ratliff v. Michael J. Astrue, 425 F. App'x 525 (8th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Catherine G. Ratliff, an attorney, successfully represented two claimants in their efforts to receive benefits from the Social Security Administration. Ratliff then filed a motion with the district court for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b). The district court granted the motion, but the government reduced the award because of debts the claimants owed the government. Ratliff challenged the government’s reduction, but the district court rejected Rat-liffs challenge.

In a prior opinion in this case, we reversed the district court’s judgment, finding that since “EAJA attorneys’ fees are awarded to prevailing parties’ attorneys, ... the government’s withholding of the fee awards to cover the claimants’ debts was in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Ratliff v. Astrue, 540 F.3d 800, 802 (8th Cir.2008). The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently reversed this court’s judgment, finding that an award of EAJA attorneys’ fees “is payable to the litigant” rather than the litigant’s attorney “and is therefore subject to a Government offset to satisfy a pre-existing debt that the litigant owes the United States.” Astrue v. Ratliff, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2524, 177 L.Ed.2d 91 (2010). Having reconsidered this case in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion, we now vacate our prior opinion and affirm the judgment of the district court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Catherine G. Ratliff, an attorney, successfully represented two claimants in their efforts to receive benefits from the Social Security Administration. Ratliff then filed a motion with the district court for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b). The district court granted the motion, but the government reduced the award because of debts the claimants owed the government. Ratliff challenged the government’s reduction, but the district court rejected Rat-liffs challenge.

In a prior opinion in this case, we reversed the district court’s judgment, finding that since “EAJA attorneys’ fees are awarded to prevailing parties’ attorneys, ... the government’s withholding of the fee awards to cover the claimants’ debts was in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Ratliff v. Astrue, 540 F.3d 800, 802 (8th Cir.2008). The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently reversed this court’s judgment, finding that an award of EAJA attorneys’ fees “is payable to the litigant” rather than the litigant’s attorney “and is therefore subject to a Government offset to satisfy a pre-existing debt that the litigant owes the United States.” Astrue v. Ratliff, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2524, 177 L.Ed.2d 91 (2010). Having reconsidered this case in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion, we now vacate our prior opinion and affirm the judgment of the district court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 F. App'x 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catherine-g-ratliff-v-michael-j-astrue-ca8-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack