GODDIN v. ASTRUE

GODDIN v. ASTRUE

Plaintiff:	BETTY JEAN GODDIN
Defendant:	MICHAEL ASTRUE
Case Number:	3:2011cv00068
Filed:	February 11, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Florida
Office:	Pensacola Office
County:	Walton
Presiding Judge:	ROGER VINSON
Presiding Judge:	CHARLES J KAHN
Nature of Suit:	Supplemental Security Income
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
March 2, 2012	Filing 22 ORDER adopting the magistrate judge's 21 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's 19 Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $2,125.00, and the Commissioner is ordered to pay that amount to plaintiff's counsel. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE ROGER VINSON on 3/2/2012. (djb)
September 23, 2011	Filing 17 ORDER adopting the magistrate judge's 16 Report and Recommendation. The defendant's motion to remand (doc. 15 ) is GRANTED and the Commissioner's decision denying benefits is REVERSED. This case is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Defendant is ordered to direct the Administrative Law Judge to further develop plaintiff's mental limitations and formulate a residual functional cap acity that includes all of plaintiff's credible limitations. The ALJ shall obtain additional vocational expert testimony and issue a new decision. The clerk is directed to enter judgment for plaintiff and close the file. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE ROGER VINSON on 9/22/2011. (djb) Modified on 9/23/2011 (djb).

Date Filed

Document Text

March 2, 2012

Filing 22 ORDER adopting the magistrate judge's 21 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's 19 Motion for Attorney Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $2,125.00, and the Commissioner is ordered to pay that amount to plaintiff's counsel. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE ROGER VINSON on 3/2/2012. (djb)

September 23, 2011

Filing 17 ORDER adopting the magistrate judge's 16 Report and Recommendation. The defendant's motion to remand (doc. 15 ) is GRANTED and the Commissioner's decision denying benefits is REVERSED. This case is remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Defendant is ordered to direct the Administrative Law Judge to further develop plaintiff's mental limitations and formulate a residual functional cap acity that includes all of plaintiff's credible limitations. The ALJ shall obtain additional vocational expert testimony and issue a new decision. The clerk is directed to enter judgment for plaintiff and close the file. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE ROGER VINSON on 9/22/2011. (djb) Modified on 9/23/2011 (djb).

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 Florida Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: GODDIN 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 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 ]
Plaintiff: BETTY JEAN GODDIN
Represented By:	QUINN ERIC BROCK
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?