Davidson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Justia Dockets & Filings Seventh Circuit Illinois Central District Davidson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Davidson v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff:	Raymond D. Davidson
Defendant:	Commissioner of Social Security
Case Number:	1:2014cv01049
Filed:	February 11, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of Illinois
Office:	Peoria Office
County:	Adams
Presiding Judge:	Jonathan E. Hawley
Presiding Judge:	James E. Shadid
Nature of Suit:	Disability Insurance
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 416
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
July 29, 2015	Filing 24 ORDER granting 23 the Defendant's Agreed Motion to Award Attorney Fees and Expenses. See Written Order. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 7/29/2015. (KZ, ilcd)
May 26, 2015	Filing 20 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 5/26/2015: The Court now adopts the Report and Recommendation 18 of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 12 is GRANT ED and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Affirmance 16 is DENIED. This case is remanded pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 USC § 405(g) in order for the ALJ to address the factors enumerated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Reco mmendation that she did not address in deciding how much weight to accord Dr. Ergene's opinion in her October 26, 2012 Decision, to articulate the weight she gives Dr. Ergene's opinion following that discussion, and to revise her RFC accordingly. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(JRK, ilcd)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 29, 2015

Filing 24 ORDER granting 23 the Defendant's Agreed Motion to Award Attorney Fees and Expenses. See Written Order. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 7/29/2015. (KZ, ilcd)

May 26, 2015

Filing 20 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 5/26/2015: The Court now adopts the Report and Recommendation 18 of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 12 is GRANT ED and the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Affirmance 16 is DENIED. This case is remanded pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 USC § 405(g) in order for the ALJ to address the factors enumerated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Reco mmendation that she did not address in deciding how much weight to accord Dr. Ergene's opinion in her October 26, 2012 Decision, to articulate the weight she gives Dr. Ergene's opinion following that discussion, and to revise her RFC accordingly. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER.(JRK, ilcd)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Illinois Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Davidson v. Commissioner of Social Security
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Raymond D. Davidson
Represented By:	Ellen C Hanson
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Commissioner of Social Security
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?