Pagan-Velez v. Astrue
Plaintiff: Sandra Pagan-Velez
Defendant: Michael J Astrue
Case Number: 2:2009cv01918
Filed: September 15, 2009
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: G Murray Snow
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 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
September 22, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 29 ORDER that the ALJ's decision is AFFIRMED-IN-PART and VACATED-IN-PART. The ALJ's rejection of Plaintiff's subjective-complaint testimony was without error, but the ALJ's RFC determination and step-five analysis was error. This case is REMANDED for further findings as set forth in this Order. The Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 9/22/10. (LSP)
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 Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Pagan-Velez 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: Sandra Pagan-Velez
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?