Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge. Plaintiff Brent Edward Crummey (“Crummey”) brought this action against Defendant, the Social Security Administration (the “SSA”), claiming that the SSA ran afoul of the Freedom of Information *118 Act and the Privacy

794 F.Supp.2d 46 (2011) Brent Edward CRUMMEY, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. Civil Action No. 10-01560(CKK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. June 30, 2011. *49 Brent Edward Crummey, Houston, TX, pro se. Gabriel R. Martinez, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, W

PER CURIAM. Allen Barnes appeals the District Court’s 1 affirmance of the denial of Social Security benefits. We affirm. Barnes was forty-seven years old at the time of the hearing before the administrative law judge (ALJ). He had obtained his GED in 1968, and had past relevant work experienc

45 F.Supp.2d 812 (1999) Judy TRUITT, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. No. Civ. 98-6160-JO. United States District Court, D. Oregon. March 9, 1999. *813 Brent Wells, Johnson Cram Harder & Wells, Eugene, OR, for plaintiff. William W. Youngman, Assistant United States Attorney,

OPINION AND ORDER MARSH, District Judge. Plaintiff Melissa Jo Young seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) disability benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381-13831 This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). For the reasons that foll

OPINION AND ORDER Malcolm F. Marsh, United States District Judge Plaintiff Denis Murray seeks judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-403. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). For the reasons

ORDER Vanessa Edwards, who is represented by counsel, appeals a district court judgment affirming the Commissioner’s denial of her application for social security disability insurance benefits. The parties have waived oral argument and the panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a). Edwards filed an application for social security disability insurance benefits on Nove

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BRENT EDWARD CRUMMEY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-01560 (CKK) SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION (June 30, 2011) tr

LUCERO, Circuit Judge. Claimant Brent Jensen appeals from the district court’s order affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security to deny his request for social security benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and AFFIRM. * Jensen applied for disability insurance

Expiration of Authorizations of Appropriations for Social Security Administration Grant Programs Notwithstanding the expiration of the specific authorizations of appropriations for the Work Incentives Planning and Assistance program and the Protection and Advocacy for Beneficiaries of Social Security program, the appropriation for administrative ex- penses of the Social Security Administration remains available to fund those two grant programs. When an agency has legal aut

258 F.Supp.2d 1187 (2003) Anita M. FIATTE, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. No. CIV.A. 01-2502-DJW. United States District Court, D. Kansas. March 17, 2003. *1188 Joan H. Deans, J.H. Deans Law Office, Raytown, MO, for Plaintiff. Christopher Allman, Christina L. Medeiros, David D

258 F.Supp.2d 1237 (2003) Adrianne M. FORSON, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. No. CIV.A. 02-2021-DJW. United States District Court, D. Kansas. April 15, 2003. *1240 Christopher Allman, Christina L. Medeiros, David D Zimmerman, Office of United States Attorney, Kansas City, KS, for Defe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Brian Zackowski, Claimant v. Case No. 17-cv-709-SM Opinion No. 2018 DNH 184 Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant O R D E R Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), claimant, Brian Zackowski, moves to reverse or vacate the Act

OPINION OF THE COURT SCIRICA, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal of a denial of social security benefits. We will affirm. *162I. Edward D’Aurelio was fifty-four years old when the ALJ denied his application for disability benefits.1 He graduated college and earned a Master’s Degree in

OPINION OF THE COURT SCHWARTZ, Senior District Judge. Evelyn Plummer asserts error in the denial of her application for social security disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433. The District Court granted summary judgment to the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), affirming the Commission

982 A.2d 876 (2009) 188 Md. App. 532 GEBHARDT & SMITH LLP v. MARYLAND PORT ADMINISTRATION. No. 1326, September Term, 2008. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. October 29, 2009. *878 Lawrence J. Gebhardt, Patrick J. Madigan (Gebhardt & Smith, LLP on the brief), Baltimore, for appellant. Phi

701 F.Supp.2d 749 (2010) Joseph ANTONIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SECURITY SERVICES OF AMERICA, LLC, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. AW-05-2982. United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division. March 31, 2010. *754 Allison Walsh Sheedy, Charles William Frick, Donald Paul Amlin, Joseph Decker,

625 N.W.2d 241 (2001) 2001 ND 73 Joyce DAHLBERG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF NORTH DAKOTA, and Mary J. Weiler, Defendants and Appellees. No. 20000152. Supreme Court of North Dakota. April 17, 2001. *244 Timothy P. Hill, Hill Law Office, Fargo, for plaintiff and appellant.

590 N.W.2d 260 (1999) 1999 SD 32 David WERNKE, Appellant, v. STATE of South Dakota, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Employer and Appellee, and South Dakota Department of Labor, Appellee. No. 20566. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs January 13, 1999. Decided March 17, 1999. *2

OPINION CARPENETI, Justice. I. INTRODUCTION A father challenges the superior court's decision to terminate his parental rights, arguing that his child was not in need of aid and that the state did not make reasonable *1241efforts to reunify his family. He also contends that the superior court should have ordered post-terminatio