SECREST v. ASTRUE
| JACKIE L. SECREST |
| MICHAEL J. ASTRUE |
| SSA (Court Use Only) |
| 1:2009cv00708 |
| June 8, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Howard |
| Richard L. Young |
| Richard L. Young |
| None |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
35
ORDER re: 31 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to EAJA. Given the considerations outlined herein, but absent specific argument from the Commissioner as to the need for a lower amount, the Court finds that the reasonable fee award i s $5,000. The Court will therefore ORDER the Commissioner to pay that amount. As required by Astrue v. Ratliff, the Court will ORDER that payment be made directly to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's fee motion, [dkt. 31], is thus GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/3/2010. (LBK)
|
|
Filing
30
CLOSED FINAL JUDGMENT: For the reasons set forth in the Court's Entry Reviewing the Commissioner's Decision, also issued this day and incorporated by reference here, the Court now enters FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, VACATES the decision denying Plaintiff benefits, and REMANDS this matter for further proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (sentence four). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/21/2010.(SWM)
|
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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
