Cases

HEANEY, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Although I agree with the majority’s analysis in part I, I respectfully dissent, because Ms. Curran-Kicksey’s claim should not have been denied. The ALJ determined in her September 10, 1999 decision that the opinions of Dr. Lynn Demarco and Dr. William Baird should be given more weight than Dr. George Lawry’s, because they were “in keeping with the evidence a

DAVIS, Chief Justice: The instant proceeding consists of two consolidated appeals, both of which present the same issue for this Court’s resolution: is an injured worker entitled to receive temporary total disability workers’ compensation benefits (hereinafter referred to as “TTD benefits”) 1 while he/she also is receiving Social Security disability benefits2 in conne

Marshall, C.J. (concurring, with whom Spina and Cordy, JJ., join). For its effective functioning, democracy requires an educated citizenry. In Massachusetts the democratic imperative to educate finds strong voice in the “education clause” of the Massachusetts Constitution, Part II, c. 5, § 2 (education clause),1 *431which “impose[s] an enfo

HILL, Circuit Judge: INTRODUCTION These facts show how rare and difficult it is rationally and logically to com *1457 bine all the several parts of legisla tion.

OPINION OF THE COURT Robert W. Doyle, J. This is a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to enjoin and restrain the respondents from (1) closing Long Island Correctional Facility (LICF); (2) taking any steps or action in accordance with any plan to close LICF; (3) discontinuing the operation and maintenance of the said facility; (4) decreasing by transfer or other means the number of employees employed at

MEMORANDUM OPINION GLADYS KESSLER, United States District Judge Frederick C. Gilliland (“Plaintiff’ or “Gilliland”) brings this 'action seeking judi *310 cial review of a final decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Defendant

ORDER Mary Olsen is 44 years old and suffers from degenerative disc disease and carpal tunnel syndrome. The Social Security Administration denied her application for disability insurance benefits, and the district court upheld that determination. Olsen appeals, challenging the administrative law judge’s conclusions that she exaggerated the intensity and persistence of her symptoms and that as of her date last insured, she had the resi

DECISION and ORDER WILLIAM G. YOUNG, District Judge.2 I. INTRODUCTION The plaintiff, Luz Leida Ortiz Torres (“Ortiz”), moves to reverse or remand the decision to deny her Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”). Compl. 1, 4, ECF No. 1. Ortiz brings this action pur

405 F.Supp.2d 1355 (2005) Lois DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. No. CIV.A.05-G-0127-S. United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division. December 19, 2005. *1356 Cheryl D. Chapman, Darryl W. Hunt, Clark & James LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff. Lane H.

OPINION AND ORDER SALVADOR E. CASELLAS, Senior District Judge. Carmen Hidalgo-Rosa (Hidalgo) brought this action under § 205(g) of the *242Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. Docket # 1. She then filed a memor

470 F.Supp.2d 1287 (2006) Deanna C. ROYBAL, Plaintiff, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. No. 2:05cv002 JTG. United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division. June 30, 2006. *1288 Bradford D. Myler, Jay K. Barnes, Bradford D. Myler & Associates, Orem, UT, for Plaintiff. Amy J. Ol

USCA11 Case: 24-11299 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2025 Page: 1 of 17 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-11299 ____________________ ROBBIN AMANDA BAYSE, a.k.a. Robert Bayse

363 F.Supp.2d 1041 (2005) David E. BLOM, Plaintiff, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. No. 04-C-0912. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. March 26, 2005. *1042 *1043 David Traver, for Plaintiff or Petitioner. Nora S. Barry, f

1 F.Supp.2d 223 (1998) Robin E. REYNOLDS, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth APFEL, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. No. 97-CV-6290L. United States District Court, W.D. New York. April 15, 1998. *224 Andrew M. Rothstein, Elmira, NY, for Robin E. Reynolds, plaintiff. Brian M. McCarthy, Asst. U.S. Atty., Roc

Justice THOMAS, concurring. Indiana law prohibits abortion providers from treating the bodies of aborted children *1783as "infectious waste" and incinerating them alongside used needles, laboratory-animal carcasses, and surgical byproducts.

ESPINOSA, J., dissenting. The majority concludes that the habeas court properly granted the petition for **222*125a writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, Michael Skakel, because his attorney at his criminal trial, Michael Sherman, provided inef

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. The Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 (Coal Act or Act) includes the present 26 U. S. C. § 9706(a), providing generally that the Commissioner of Social Security “shall, before October 1, 1993,” assign each coal industry retiree eligible for benefits to an extant operating company or a “related” entity, which shall then be responsible for fundin

HOWARD, Circuit Judge. After Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (“PRWORA”), narrowing the eligibility of non-citizens for Medicaid and other federal benefits, the state of Maine responded in 1997 by extending state-funded medical assistance benefits to certain legal aliens rendered ineligible for Medicaid. In 2011, the Maine L

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-2290 R3 COMPOSITES CORP., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. G&S SALES CORP., Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the North

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-2290 R3 COMPOSITES CORP., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. G&S SALES CORP., Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the North