Cases

DECISION AND ORDER HONORABLE MICHAEL A. TELESCA, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION Represented by counsel, Kevin Renard Wilson (“Plaintiff’) brings this action pursuant to Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”) de*481

MEMORANDUM OPINION NITZAI. QUIÑONES ALEJANDRO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE INTRODUCTION On July 24, 2015, Plaintiff Jameel Wilson (“Plaintiff’ or “Wilson”) filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking judicial review of the final decision of Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Defendant”), which denied his application fo

OPINION & ORDER ANDREW J. PECK, United States Magistrate Judge: Francis Wilson, represented by counsel, brings this action pursuant to § 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) denying him Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). (Dkt. No. 2: Compl.) Presently before the Court are the par

DECISION AND ORDER DAVID G. LARIMER, District Judge. Plaintiff appeals from a denial of disability benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”). The action is one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to review the final determination of the Commissioner. On May 11, 2011, plaintiff filed applications for a period of disability and disability insuranc

OPINION AND ORDER BROWN, District Judge. Plaintiff Matthew James Wilson seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA) in which she denied Plaintiffs applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) under Title II of the Social Security Act and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. This Court has jur

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PAUL BARBADORO, District Judge. Richard Arthur Wilson seeks judicial review of a ruling by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). Wilson claims that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in failing to call a medical advisor to assist him in determining the onset date of his claim

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge. Antonette Wilson (“Wilson”),1 on behalf of her daughter J.D., seeks judicial review pursuant to Social Security Act (“Act”) § 405(g)2 of the final decision of Commissioner of Social Security Carolyn Colvin (“Commissioner”) denying J.D.’s claim for supplemental secur

MEMORANDUM OPINION G. MICHAEL HARVEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE In this action, Plaintiff Karen Johnson seeks reversal of a decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Before the Court are Plaintiffs motion for judgment of reversal and Defendant’s motion for judgment of aff

MEMORANDUM OPINION SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff Sarah Lindsey brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits [DIB]. Upon review of the record, the parties’ submissions, and the relevant law, the c

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM Opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Emma Kathy Love appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and upholding the Commissioner's denial of Love's application for disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and fin

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Juliette N. Finney appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Finney’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find n

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kenneth A. Greene appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint purporting to raise several civil claims against Defendants. We have reviewed the record and agree that Greene’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingl

OPINION ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, United States District Judge Ephraim Greenberg asks the Court to certify a class of individuals who have had their Old Age, Survivors, and/or Disability Insurance Benefits reduced under the Windfall Elimination Provision of the Social Security Act because they receive Old Age Benefits from the National Insurance Institute of Isr

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Betty Woodcock appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Acc

MEMORANDUM OPINION ABDUL K. KALLON, District Judge. Plaintiff Rhonda Crow brings this action pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking review of the adverse decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), which has become the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”). This court finds that the ALJ’s

MEMORANDUM OPINION KARON OWEN BOWDRE, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On December 14, 2009, the claimant protectively filed a Title II application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits and a Title XVI application for supplemental security income. In both applications, she alleged onset of her disability beginning March 29, 2007. The Commissioner initially denied

ORDER SARAH S. VANCE, District Judge. Before the Court are plaintiff Lawrence Halloran’s objections1 to the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation2 (“F & R”) denying plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. Having reviewed de novo the record, the Magistrate’s F & R, the plain

*********** The Full Commission has reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Stephenson, and the briefs and arguments of the parties. The appealing party has not shown good grounds to reconsider the evidence, receive further evidence, or rehear the parties or their representatives. Having reviewed the competent evidence of record, the Full Commission reverses the Opinion and Award o

877 F.2d 53 Colvin (Benton)v.Wilson (W. Gus) NOS. 89-5118, 89-5119 United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. MAY 17, 1989 1 Appeal From: M.D.Pa. 2 REVERSED AND REMANDED.</

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) EDITH ANN HIGGINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 16-27 (RBW) ) ANDREW SAUL, in his official capacit