Moya v. Astrue

Moya v. Astrue

Plaintiff:	Crystal A Moya
Defendant:	Michael J Astrue
Case Number:	2:2012cv01659
Filed:	August 3, 2012
Court:	U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
Office:	Phoenix Division Office
County:	Maricopa
Presiding Judge:	Frederick J Martone
Nature of Suit:	Disability Insurance
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
November 5, 2013	Filing 19 ORDER granting 16 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff is awarded $6,762.02 in fees and $350.00 in costs. We reject plaintiff's request that the award of fees be paid directly to her lawyer based on an executed assignment of her right to EAJA fees. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 11/4/13. (LAD)
July 11, 2013	Filing 13 ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner and REMANDING for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand the ALJ is directed to reevaluate Dr. Finely& #039;s opinion in light of the new evidence. The ALJ is further directed to reassess the step four conclusion in light of this opinion and the new evidence, and to proceed to a step five analysis to determine whether there are jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff can perform. The Clerk shall enter final judgment. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 7/11/13. (LAD)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 5, 2013

Filing 19 ORDER granting 16 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff is awarded $6,762.02 in fees and $350.00 in costs. We reject plaintiff's request that the award of fees be paid directly to her lawyer based on an executed assignment of her right to EAJA fees. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 11/4/13. (LAD)

July 11, 2013

Filing 13 ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED REVERSING the decision of the Commissioner and REMANDING for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand the ALJ is directed to reevaluate Dr. Finely& #039;s opinion in light of the new evidence. The ALJ is further directed to reassess the step four conclusion in light of this opinion and the new evidence, and to proceed to a step five analysis to determine whether there are jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy that plaintiff can perform. The Clerk shall enter final judgment. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 7/11/13. (LAD)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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: Moya v. Astrue
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Michael J Astrue
Represented By:	Michael A Johns
Represented By:	Laura Hope Holland
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 ]
Plaintiff: Crystal A Moya
Represented By:	Rodney A Melkonoff
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?