A.V. v. Bisignano
- Dulce Foster
- 0:25-cv-02546
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Laura A.V. v. Bisignano, Magistrate Judge Foster granted $9,968.40 in attorney fees and $405 in costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, while denying the government's request to designate the costs as payable from the Judgment Fund.
Social Security claimants who have successfully obtained a remand of their case and are seeking reimbursement of attorney fees and costs from the government under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The ruling also affects the government's ability to designate specific payment sources (such as the Judgment Fund) without demonstrating the required legal basis.
What happened
In Laura A.V. v. Bisignano (Case No. 25-cv-2546), a Social Security case that had already been sent back to the agency for further proceedings, the plaintiff asked the court to award attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act — a federal law that allows winning parties to recover legal fees from the government in certain cases. The plaintiff sought $9,563.40 in fees and $405 in costs. The government did not oppose the fee award but asked the court to specifically direct that the $405 in costs be paid from a special government account called the Judgment Fund.
The court found the fee request reasonable and granted it, but the total fees awarded came to $9,968.40 — higher than the amount originally requested — along with the $405 in costs. The opinion does not explain the difference between the requested and awarded fee amounts.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster denied the government's request to designate the costs as payable from the Judgment Fund, finding that the government provided no information showing it met the legal requirements for that type of payment. The court ordered the government to pay the fees and costs from whatever sources are legally appropriate. The court also noted that the fee award may be reduced to cover any existing debt the plaintiff owes to the federal government, and that if no such debt exists and the government waives certain assignment rules, the fees will be paid directly to the plaintiff's law firm, Livgard, Lloyd, & Christel PLLP.
The detailed version
- A.V. v. Bisignano · No. 0:25-cv-02546
- Dulce J. Foster
- July 7, 2026
Background
This is a Social Security appeal in which the underlying merits dispute was resolved earlier by a court order (ECF No. 19) remanding the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings. Following that remand, the plaintiff filed an unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The EAJA allows a prevailing party to recover attorney fees and costs from the federal government in civil actions unless the government's position was substantially justified.
The Fee Motion
Plaintiff sought $9,563.40 in attorney fees plus $405.00 in costs. The government (the Commissioner of Social Security) did not oppose the fee award but requested that the court's order specifically direct: (1) attorney fees of $9,563.40 to be paid by the Social Security Administration; and (2) $405.00 in costs to be paid by the Judgment Fund — a permanent appropriation under 31 U.S.C. § 1304 used to pay certain court judgments against the United States.
The Court's Rulings
Fee Award — Granted The court found the fee request reasonable based on the plaintiff's submissions and the parties' agreement. It granted the Fee Motion and awarded $9,968.40 in fees and $405.00 in costs. The opinion does not explain why the awarded fees ($9,968.40) differ from the requested amount ($9,563.40).
Judgment Fund Designation — Denied The court denied the government's request to expressly order that the $405.00 in costs be paid from the Judgment Fund. The court's stated reason was that the government provided no information demonstrating that the award meets the statutory requirements for a Judgment Fund appropriation under 31 U.S.C. § 1304. The court instead ordered that the government may pay the fees and costs from whatever sources are appropriate under applicable law.
Offset and Payment Instructions
Consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), the court noted that the EAJA fees may be subject to offset if the plaintiff has a preexisting debt to the United States subject to the Treasury Offset Program. The payment logistics depend on that determination:
- If the Commissioner determines no such debt exists and waives the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act (a federal law generally prohibiting assignment of claims against the government), fees will be payable to the plaintiff's law firm, Livgard, Lloyd, & Christel PLLP. - If a debt subject to offset exists, the Commissioner cannot waive the Anti-Assignment Act, and any remaining fees after offset will be paid by check made out to the plaintiff personally.
In either case, checks are to be delivered to Livgard, Lloyd, & Christel PLLP at PO Box 14906, Minneapolis, MN 55414.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.