Cases

380 F.Supp.2d 54 (2005) Awilda VEGA-MORALES, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. Civil No. 04-1741 (DRD). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. July 30, 2005. *55 Raul Torres-Rodriguez, Torres & Santiago Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff. Lisa E. Bhatia-Gautier, United States Attorne

*36 PER CURIAM. Claimant Esperanza Morales appeals from the judgment of the district court. This judgment affirmed the denial by the Commissioner of Social Security of claimant’s application for disability benefits. We affirm the district court’s judgment for th

288 F.Supp.2d 132 (2003) Alberto MORALES ALONSO, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. No. CIV. 02-2377(JAG-JAC). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. September 29, 2003. *133 *134 Rafael Colón Flores, Ponce, PR, for Plaintiff. Camille L. Vélez Rivé, AUSA, T

245 F.Supp.2d 395 (2003) Marisol MORALES COLON Plaintiffs v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Defendants No. CIV. 02-2005(SEC/GAG). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. February 14, 2003. *396 Rafael Colon Flores, Ponce, PR, for Plaintiff. H.S. Garcia, United States Attorney, Camille Velez-Rive, Assistant Unites St

OPINION OF THE COURT OAKES, Senior Circuit Judge. William Morales appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Brody, Judge) approving and adopting the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate (Scuderi, M.J.) affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s conclusion

ORDER DEBORAH BARNES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This social security action was submitted to the court without oral argument for ruling on plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.1 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s treatment of the medical opinion evidence, plaintiffs subjective testimony, and the ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination constituted error. For the r

OPINION AND ORDER FEUERSTEIN, District Judge: Pro se Plaintiff Rodolfo Frias (“Plaintiff’ or “Frias”) commenced this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3), seeking judicial review of the final determination of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”) denying Plaintiffs Au*127gust 9, 2012 app

MEMORANDUM ORDER BUMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the Court upon the appeal by Plaintiff Theresa Pfis-ter Stockett (the “Plaintiff’) of the final determination of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying Plaintiffs application for social security benefits [Docket No. 1]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court VACATES the decision of the Administrative

ORDER HILLMAN, District Judge. Background Nilsa Yolanda Ortiz (“Ortiz”) has brought this action pursuant to section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)(“Act”) seeking judicial review of a final decision made by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) denying her application for Social Security disability benefits. Ort

USCA11 Case: 19-14682 Date Filed: 08/12/2021 Page: 1 of 33 RESTRICTED [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-14682 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-24013-UU ARTURO O. SIMON,

USCA11 Case: 19-14682 Date Filed: 08/12/2021 Page: 1 of 33 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-14682 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-24013-UU ARTURO O. SIMON,

MEMORANDUM *** Claimant Debra M. Morales (“Morales”), a diabetic suffering from several attendant illnesses, sought disability benefits and supplemental security income. An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found Morales “not fully credible” and denied benefits. The district court affirmed. Morales raises several issues on appeal. First, she argues that the ALJ erred by failing to ask a Vo

USCA11 Case: 19-14682 Date Filed: 06/09/2021 Page: 1 of 32 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-14682 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-24013-UU ARTURO O. SIMON,

ORDER MICHAEL R. BARRETT, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) filed by the Magistrate Judge on August 15,2011. (Doc.18.) Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the R & R

ORDER ALAN N. BLOCH, District Judge. AND NOW, this 7th day of March, 2012, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (document No. 10) filed in the above captioned matter on June 7, 2011, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said Motion is DENIED. AND, further, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (document No. 8) filed in

MEMORANDUM **** Appellant Pedro Morales appeals from the granting of summaiy judgment in favor of Appellee Michael Astrue, Commis*844sioner of Social Security, denying Morales’ petition for disability benefits. Morales has waived any argument that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to properly consider all of Morales’ ailme

MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLIAM L. STANDISH, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Angela Lee Dunkle, seeks judicial review of a decision of Defendant, Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”), denying her applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”) under Titles II and XVI, respectively, of the Social Security Ac

767 F.Supp.2d 278 (2010) Hemeregilda MERCADO, Plaintiff v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. Civil No. 09-2288 (JA). United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico. December 1, 2010. *280 Salvador Medina-De-La-Cruz, Salvador Medina-De-la-Cruz Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiff. Ginette L. Milanes, U.S. Attorne

OPINION OF THE COURT BARRY, Circuit Judge. This case — a case that involves the rights of the posthumously conceived children of a deceased wage earner and his widow — requires us to consider the intersection of new reproductive technologies and what is required to qualify for child survivor benefits under the Social Security Act (the “Act”). It goes without saying that these technologies were not within t

*365OPINION OF THE COURT CHAGARES, Circuit Judge. Kevin Knox appeals from a District Court order affirming the denial of Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act by the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”). We will affirm. I. Because we write sole