Velez-Roldan v. Commissioner of Social Security

Defendant: Commissioner of Social Security
Plaintiff: Carlos H. Velez-Roldan
Case Number: 3:2011cv01451
Filed: May 16, 2011
Court: Puerto Rico District Court
Office: San Juan Office
County: Arecibo
Presiding Judge: Francisco A. Besosa
Referring Judge: Marcos E. Lopez
Nature of Suit: Disability Insurance
Cause of Action: 42:205
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
September 14, 2012 21 Opinion or Order of the Court OPINION AND ORDER re: 1 Complaint, affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Marcos E. Lopez on 9/14/12. (SB)

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 Puerto Rico District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Velez-Roldan v. Commissioner of Social Security
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Commissioner of Social Security
Represented By: Ginette L. Milanes
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 ]
Plaintiff: Carlos H. Velez-Roldan
Represented By: Raymond Rivera-Esteves
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.