Indiana Social Security Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 9,108
Hayes v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2024cv00184
Plaintiff:
Rochelle Hayes
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
PRATER v. O'MALLEY
as 1:2024cv00782
Plaintiff:
STEPHANIE S. PRATER
Defendant:
MARTIN O'MALLEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)
Seiber v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 4:2024cv00037
Plaintiff:
Jamie L Seiber
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (RSI)
DICKERSON v. O'MALLEY
as 1:2024cv00778
Plaintiff:
ANDREW D. DICKERSON
Defendant:
MARTIN J. O'MALLEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
PASCHAL v. O'Malley
as 1:2024cv00183
Plaintiff:
AARON PASCHAL
Defendant:
Com'r of Soc. S Martin O'Malley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
SHILTS v. O'Malley
as 3:2024cv00368
Plaintiff:
LORI ANNE SHILTS
Defendant:
Commissioner of SSA Martin J O'Malley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Ott v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 3:2024cv00369
Plaintiff:
Carly L Ott
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Not Yet Classified:
General Counsel SSA (Court use only)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Pruitt v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 2:2024cv00157
Plaintiff:
Keaton Pruitt
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
English v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2024cv00178
Plaintiff:
Michael L. English
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
DEVINE v. O'MALLEY
as 1:2024cv00751
Plaintiff:
ANTHONY L. DEVINE
Defendant:
MARTIN O'MALLEY
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
