Legal Opinion
Petersen v. Astrue
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided February 3, 2011No. 09-2374PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge.
The Commissioner of Social Security appeals the district court’s 1 judgment reversing the Commissioner’s decision to apply the Windfall Elimination Provision to David Petersen’s old-age social security benefits. As we agree with the district court’s well-reasoned decision, we affirm.
I
A
As this case intimately involves the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), we begin with a brief description of that provision. The WEP was enacted in 1983 to eliminate the unintended benefits windfall that occurs when workers who split their career between covered employment (required to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Jimenez v. QuartermanSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Walch v. Adjutant General's DepartmentCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2008
- Reutter Ex Rel. Reutter v. BarnhartCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2004
- United States v. S.A.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1997
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Charles Mitchael v. Carolyn W. ColvinCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2016
- Linda Larson v. Andrew SaulCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020
- Donald Larry Martin v. Social Security Administration, CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2018
- Kientz v. Commissioner, SSACourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2020
- Babcock v. KijakaziSupreme Court of the United States · 2022
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.