Cases

*734 MEMORANDUM OPINION ANDREWS, District Judge: INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Darcy L. Hall appeals the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act and for supplement security income under Title XVI of the Social Security Act (collectively “DIB”). Jurisdiction exists pur

MEMORANDUM EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Wilma L. Hall (“Plaintiff’) filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s (“Commissioner”) final decision denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Currently before the

677 F.Supp.2d 617 (2009) Desiray HALL, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. No. 08-CV-526. United States District Court, W.D. New York. December 20, 2009. *619 Amanda R. Jordan, Law Offices of Kenneth Hiller, Amherst, NY, for Plaintiff. Jane B. Wolfe, U.S. Attorney's Office, Buffalo,

ORDER TERRENCE WILLIAM BOYLE, District Judge. This cause comes before the Court on cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. A hearing was held on these matters before the undersigned on January 22, 2013, at Elizabeth City, North Carolina. For the reasons discussed below, the decision of the Commissioner is reversed. BACKGROUND Plaintiff bro

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the *270Pleadings [Doc. 11] and the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 13]. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On October 2, 2007, the Plaintiff applied for disability

MEMORANDUM ** Victoria Mead appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 6

602 F.Supp.2d 694 (2009) Robert L. MELVIN, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. No. 5:06-CV-314-D. United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division. February 6, 2009. *696 Vaughn Stephen Clauson, The Charles T. Hall Law Firm, PC, Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiff. Mark J.

686 F.Supp.2d 590 (2010) James R. AYTCH, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. No. 4:09-CV-15-FL. United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Eastern Division. February 18, 2010. *592 Diane S. Griffin, Charles T. Hall Law Firm, P.C., Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiff. Elisa Donohoe, S

588 F.Supp.2d 269 (2008) Peggy BURDEN, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:07-cv-642 (JCH). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. November 25, 2008. *271 Charles A. Pirro, III, Pirro & Church, South Norwalk, CT, for Plaintiff. Ann M. Nevin

595 F.3d 402 (2010) Gloria ZABALA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Social Security, Respondent-Appellee. Docket No. 08-0928-cv. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued: May 26, 2009. Decided: February 11, 2010. *404 Cara Campbell, Julie Gendel

MEMORANDUM ** Darrell Baier appeals the district court’s decision affirming the denial of social security disability benefits. We affirm. A claimant bears the burden of establishing disability by demonstrating an “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment....” Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686

MEMORANDUM ** Darrell Baier appeals the district court’s decision affirming the denial of social security disability benefits. We affirm. A claimant bears the burden of establishing disability by demonstrating an “inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment....” Webb v. Barnhart, 433 F.3d 683, 686

SUMMARY ORDER Holly Stanton appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the Social Security Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits. “We review the administrative record de novo to determine whether there is substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner’s decision and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standard.” Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 305 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotati

537 F.3d 117 (2008) Doleen BURGESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. Docket No. 05-4327-cv. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued: April 23, 2008. Decided: August 8, 2008. *119 Robert Farley and Jean Troast, law students appearing pur

MEMORANDUM * Miranda Eksund appeals from the district court’s order affirming the denial of Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits under the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 423 & 1382(a). Eksund challenges the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) determinations at steps four and five of the five-step sequential evaluation process. See 20 C.F.R. § § 404.1520 & 416.920.

559 F.Supp.2d 662 (2008) Ethel NEWTON, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. No. 4:07-CV-73-FL. United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Eastern Division. June 16, 2008. *664 Diane S. Griffin, Charles T. Hall Law Firm, P.C., Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiff. Mark J. Goldenberg, So

588 F.Supp.2d 253 (2008) Paul R. VILLELLA, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:07-cv-1442 (JCH). United States District Court, D. Connecticut. November 24, 2008. *255 Charles A. Pirro, III, Pirro & Church, South Norwalk, CT, for Plaintiff. Ann M.

SUMMARY ORDER Collin Gates appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action challenging the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“the Commissioner”) denial of Gates’s application for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits.2 The Commissioner determined that Gates, although unable to perform his past relevant work as a result of cognitive deficits and an anxiety disorder, retained the

MEMORANDUM ** Victoria Mead appeals the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner of Social Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s decision affirming the Commissioner’s denial of benefits. Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 6

SUMMARY ORDER Plaintiff-Appellant Mary Galiotti appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Telesca, J.), granting the Respondent-Appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings upholding the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits under the Social Security Act. We presume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.