Chewie v. Social Security Administration

Plaintiff: Kimberly Sue Chewie
Defendant: Social Security Administration
Case Number: 4:2012cv00590
Filed: October 22, 2012
Court: Oklahoma Northern District Court
Office: Tulsa Office
County: Delaware
Referring Judge: Paul J Cleary
Presiding Judge: Terence Kern
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
December 17, 2013 19 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Paul J Cleary Affirming the Commissioner's decision (kjp, Dpty Clk)

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 Oklahoma Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Chewie v. Social Security Administration
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Kimberly Sue Chewie
Represented By: Casey Lee Saunders
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Social Security Administration
Represented By: Michael Allen Moss
Represented By: Cheryl L Baber
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 [ 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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.