Filed: Aug. 12, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 06-3627 _ Brandy Wilson, * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of * Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant - Appellee. * _ Submitted: August 11, 2010 Filed: August 12, 2011 _ Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. The Bartels Law Firm, LLC, and E. Gregory Wallace, Esq., successfully repre
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 06-3627 _ Brandy Wilson, * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of * Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant - Appellee. * _ Submitted: August 11, 2010 Filed: August 12, 2011 _ Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. The Bartels Law Firm, LLC, and E. Gregory Wallace, Esq., successfully repres..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-3627
___________
Brandy Wilson, *
*
Plaintiff - Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Arkansas.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of *
Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Defendant - Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: August 11, 2010
Filed: August 12, 2011
___________
Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
The Bartels Law Firm, LLC, and E. Gregory Wallace, Esq., successfully
represented Brandy Wilson in an appeal from a denial of Social Security disability
benefits. This court awarded attorneys' fees and expenses under the Equal Access to
Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b), but the United States Treasury offset the
fee award against debts Wilson owed to the government. We issued an order in this
case on September 15, 2008, finding that an EAJA attorneys' fee award "should not
be offset against debts owed by the successful claimant." Wilson v. Astrue, No. 06-
3627 (8th Cir. Sept. 15, 2008). Subsequently, the Supreme Court of the United States
reversed this court's judgment for the reasons articulated in the Supreme Court's
opinion in Astrue v. Ratliff,
130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010). Astrue v. Wilson,
130 S. Ct.
3450, 3450–51 (2010). Consequently, to the extent the Supreme Court did not vacate
our prior order, we do so now.
______________________________
-2-