Vason v. Astrue
Plaintiff: Cesly Patrice Vason
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 2:2009cv00912
Filed: September 25, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Office: Montgomery Office
County: Montgomery
Presiding Judge: Terry F. Moorer
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
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
June 30, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court concludes that the decision of the ALJ was based on substantial evidence and that no legal error was committed. Therefore, it is ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED. A separate Judgment is entered herewith. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 6/30/2010. (dmn)
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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Vason v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Cesly Patrice Vason
Represented By: Carl Steven Pittman
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: 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 [ 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?