Cases

OPINION AND ORDER GERSHON, District Judge: Plaintiff Mary Price brings this action seeking court review of the July 2, 2009 final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”), by which her application for Supplemental Security Income benefits, made on behalf of her infant grandson, was denied. The Commissioner now moves for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ

MEMORANDUM *** Sherry Price appeals the district court’s affirmance of the ALJ’s determination that she is ineligible for Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We affirm. Price argues that the ALJ improperly discounted the opinion of her treating physician. A treating physician’s opinion is not “conclusive as to either a physical condition or

MEMORANDUM *** Sherry Price appeals the district court’s affirmance of the ALJ’s determination that she is ineligible for Supplemental Security Income benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. We affirm. Price argues that the ALJ improperly discounted the opinion of her treating physician. A treating physician’s opinion is not “conclusive as to either a physical condition or

572 F.Supp.2d 703 (2008) LaQuita A. PRICE v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security. Action No. 4:07-CV-435-Y. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division. August 12, 2008. *705 Elizabeth B. Dunlap, Law Office of Elizabeth B. Dunlap, Dallas, TX, for LaQuita A. Price. Charles O. Dobbs, U.S. Att

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. Royce Glen McDade applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income in February 2008. McDade now appeals the district court’s 1 decision upholding the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of his application. We affirm. I.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHAEL GREENWALD Plaintiff, Civ. Action No. 17-797(EGS/RMM) v. XAVIER BECERRA, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services et al., Defendants. 1 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Michael Greenwald (“Mr. Greenwald”),

MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge Plaintiff Sarah Porter applied for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits on April 13, 2006, alleging that she had become disabled from a car accident that affected her ability to stand and caused her constant pain. See Porter v. Colvin (Porter I), 951 F

WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge Sharen R. Price ("Plaintiff) brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) alleging the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the "Commissioner" or "Defendant") improperly denied Plaintiff's applications for Social Security Disability benefits.

OPINION AND ORDER BROWN, District Judge. Plaintiff Peter L. Feskens seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) in which he denied Plaintiffs application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act. This Court has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s decision pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

MEMORANDUM OPINION ANDREWS, District Judge: Plaintiff Alan M. Sadaka appeals the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and for supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (collectively “DIB”). Jurisdiction exists pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) & 1383(c)(3). Pending before the Cou

ORDER LANCE M. AFRICK, District Judge. The Court, having considered the petition, the record, the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the lack of any objections thereto, hereby approves the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED IN PART to the ex

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ELAINE E. BUCKLO, District Judge. Plaintiff Aaron M. Willoughby filed an action against Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”), seeking review of the denial of his application for disability benefits. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. On July 12, 2012, I denied the Commissioner’s motion and g

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN, Senior District Judge. This matter is presently before the Court on plaintiffs motion for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) [docket entry 24], Defendant has filed a response. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2), the Court shall decide this motion

MEMORANDUM OPINION KARON OWEN BOWDRE, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On March 10, 2008, the claimant, Earnestine Sanders, applied for social security insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, a period of disability under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, and supplemental security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The claimant alleges disability com

RULING ON CLASS CERTIFICATION Michael P. Shea, U.S.D.J. I.INTRODUCTION This case is about whether Medicare beneficiaries have a right to administrative review of the decision to treat their hospital stays as “observation” rather than “inpatient”—a decision that can have significant financial consequences. After surviving summary judgment and two motions to dismiss, plaintiffs now move to

OPINION AND ORDER J. LEON HOLMES, District Judge. This is a Social Security disability appeal in which the Court found that the administrative law judge committed error and remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The plaintiff has filed a petition for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. She requests a fee in the amount of $8,411.77, calc

*614ORDER Debbie Eskew seeks review of the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. She argues that the administrative law judge committed a series of analytical and factual errors while applying the five-step test used to determine eligibility for benefits. Because the ALJ’s assessment of Eskew’s credibility was patently wrong, we reverse and remand for furth

606 F.3d 433 (2010) Darrell POER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee. No. 09-3473. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued February 10, 2010. Decided May 27, 2010. *434 Neal F. Eggeson, Jr., Attorney, Eggeson Appellate Serv

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS and DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER (Document Nos. 11 and 14) KENNETH P. NEIMAN, United States Magistrate Judge. This is an action for judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) regarding an individual’s entitlement to

OPINION AND ORDER MOSMAN, District Judge. On January 25, 2012, Magistrate Judge Hubei issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F & R”) [20] in the above-captioned case, recommending that I remand the Commissioner’s decision for further proceedings. Defendant filed objections [22] and plaintiff responded [23]. STANDARD OF REVIEW The magistrate judge makes on