Soghoian v. Astrue

Plaintiff: Talitha Soghoian
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 1:2012cv01232
Filed: November 2, 2012
Court: Virginia Eastern District Court
Office: Alexandria Office
County: Alexandria City
Presiding Judge: Liam O'Grady
Referring Judge: Thomas Rawles Jones
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
March 13, 2014 20 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER granting 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 19 Report and Recommendations. The final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 3/13/14. (gwalk, )

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 Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Soghoian v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Talitha Soghoian
Represented By: Scott Bertram Elkind
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: Michael J. Astrue
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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.