Cases

BLACK, Circuit Judge: Donnell Mitchell appeals the district court’s order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of his application for supplemental security income (SSI) and the Appeals Council’s decision denying his request for review. On appeal, Mitchell contends substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s credibility determination and that the Appeals Coun

MEMORANDUM *** Margaret DeBerry (“DeBerry”) appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. DeBerry asserts that the ALJ: (1) did not properly apply Social Security Regulation 83-20; (2) erred in rejecting the opinion of Dr. Ruth Lowen

MEMORANDUM *** Margaret DeBerry (“DeBerry”) appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. DeBerry asserts that the ALJ: (1) did not properly apply Social Security Regulation 83-20; (2) erred in rejecting the opinion of Dr. Ruth Lowen

ORDER THAT: (1) THE ALJ’S NON-DISABILITY FINDING IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND IS REVERSED; (2) JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AWARDING BENEFITS; AND (3) THIS CASE IS CLOSED TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge. This is a Social Security disability benefits appeal. At issue is whether the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in finding the Plaintiff “not disabled” and therefore not e

ORDER THAT: (1) THE ALJ’S NON-DISABILITY FINDING IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND IS REVERSED; (2) JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AWARDING BENEFITS; AND (3) THIS CASE IS CLOSED TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge. This is a Social Security disability benefits appeal. At issue is whether the ad*832ministrative law judge (“ALJ”)

ORDER THAT: (1) THE ALJ’S NON-DISABILITY FINDING ÍS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND IS REVERSED; (2) JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AWARDING BENEFITS; AND (3) THIS CASE IS CLOSED TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge. This is a Social Security disability benefits appeal. At issue is whether the ad*814ministrative law judge (“ALJ”)

ORDER THAT: (1) THE ALJ’S NON-DISABILITY FINDING IS FOUND NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND IS REVERSED; AND (2) JUDGMENT BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AWARDING BENEFITS TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge. This is a Social Security disability benefits appeal. At issue is whether the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred in finding Plaintiff “not disabled” and therefore unentitled to disability ins

MEMORANDUM ** Patricia Reams appeals the denial of her application for Social Security disability *882insurance benefits. Because the ALJ’s decision to discredit Reams’s testimony and to reject the opinion of Reams’s treating physician is supported by substantial evidence in the record, we affirm the ALJ’s decision. The ALJ did no

ORDER THAT: (1) THE ALJ’S NON-DISABILITY FINDING IS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND IS REVERSED; (2) JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AWARDING BENEFITS; AND (3) THIS CASE IS CLOSED TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge. This is a Social Security disability benefits appeal. At issue is whether the administrative law judge (the “ALJ”) erred in finding Plaintiff “not disabled” from August 25,

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. Phyllis Y. Black appeals the district court's 1 judgment affirming the denial of her application for social security disability benefits. We affirm. I. Phyllis Y. Black is a forty-nine-year-old woman who earned a high school degree and attended

USCA11 Case: 21-12148 Date Filed: 06/27/2022 Page: 1 of 13 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-12148 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ZINTA HARNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEREK N. JARVIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil No. 17-1813 (EGS) ) COMMISSIONER, ) SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, ) ) Defendant. )

OPINION STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Salena Glenn successfully petitioned for review of the denial of her claim for social security benefits and won remand to the Commissioner. The district court’s decision was based on a Report and Recommendation (R & R) of a magistrate judge finding five errors, both legal and factual, in the administrative law judge’s (A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TAMMY ELIZABETHE P., 1 Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 20-cv-3693-RMM KILOLO KIJAZAKI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Tammy Elizabethe P. brought this action under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review

ED CARNES, Chief Judge: Sonya Hunter appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for remand and affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s final decision to deny her application for disability insurance benefits. Hunter contends that the district court should have remanded the case to the Commissioner for further proceedin

820 F.Supp.2d 721 (2011) Mark A. HAZEL, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. Case No. 9:10-cv-02488-RMG. United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Beaufort Division. September 28, 2011. *722 Robertson H. Wendt, Jr., Robertson Wendt Law Office, N. Charleston, SC, for Plaintiff. Mar

MEMORANDUM OPINION Savage, District Judge. The issue presented in this Social Security case is whether the total award of attorneys’ fees to the attorney who represented the claimant at the administrative level and to another attorney who' represented him on judicial review may exceed 25 percent of the claimant’s past-due benefits. It is an issue that has divided the circuit courts of appeals, and one the

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MARIANNE O. BATTANI, United States District Judge Plaintiff Koretta J. Wilkerson brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the final decision of the Defendant Commissioner denying her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security’ Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 e

HOLSCHUH, District Judge, dissenting in part and concurring in part. This appeal involves an important issue in the administration of the law applicable in Social Security appeals. When an ALJ intentionally or negligently violates the law, in this case 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520a that sets forth a mandated special technique for the evaluation of claims based on mental illness, is such

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ■ SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PRO- • CEEDINGS . BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This. matter is presently before, the Court on cross motions for summary judgment [docket entries 9 and 16]. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2), the Court shall decide these motions witho