Missouri Social Security Cases
Cases 1 - 10 of 312
Miller v. O'Malley
as 4:2024cv01049
Defendant:
Martin O'Malley
Plaintiff:
Kevin P. Miller
Interested Party:
SSA Office of General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Pitts v. O'Malley

as 4:2024cv00496
Plaintiff:
Travis John Pitts
Defendant:
Martin O'Malley
Interested Party:
SSA Office of General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 402 Social Security Benefits
Heard v. O'Malley
as 4:2024cv00077
Plaintiff:
Kathleen Heard
Defendant:
Martin O'Malley
Interested Party:
SSA Office of General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Wright v. Kijakazi
as 4:2023cv01360
Plaintiff:
Vickie Wright
Defendant:
Kilolo Kijakazi
Interested Party:
SSA Office of General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Hoffson v. Kijakazi

as 4:2023cv00448
Plaintiff:
Larry Hoffson
Defendant:
Kilolo Kijakazi
Interested Party:
SSA Office of General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
Clark v. Saul

as 4:2021cv00342
Plaintiff:
Adam Lee Clark
Defendant:
Andrew M. Saul
Interested Party:
SSA Office of General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Holden v. Saul

as 4:2020cv01858
Plaintiff:
Lisa Marie Holden
Defendant:
Andrew M. Saul
Interested Party:
SSA Office of General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205
Plummer v. Saul

as 4:2020cv01811
Interested Party:
SSA Office of General Counsel
Defendant:
Andrew M. Saul
Plaintiff:
Debra Rae Plummer
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Peeler v. Saul

as 1:2020cv00241
Interested Party:
SSA Office of General Counsel
Defendant:
Andrew M. Saul
Plaintiff:
Lisa Diane Peeler
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205
Chapman v. Saul

as 1:2020cv00125
Defendant:
Andrew M. Saul
Plaintiff:
Celeste Christine Chapman
Interested Party:
SSA Office of General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405
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.