STAGGS v ASTRUE
1:2009cv01519 |
December 11, 2009 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
Indianapolis Office |
Tim A. Baker |
William T. Lawrence |
Social Security: DIWC/DIWW |
42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC) |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 33 ENTRY ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEE: Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED IN PART and Plaintiff's counsel is awarded $6,191.96 in fees ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 7/8/2011. (DWH) |
Filing 26 ENTRY ON JUDICIAL REVIEW: For the reasons discussed at length above, this case is REVERSED AND REMANDED with instructions to: (1) obtain and consider an updated medical opinion regarding whether, based on all of the evidence in the Record, Staggs mee ts or medically equals any of the Listings of Impairments; (2) consider all of the evidence of Record to determine whether Staggs meets or medically equals any of the Listings of Impairments; and (3) consult with a vocational expert to determine if and how Staggs' nonexertional limitations affect her ability to perform light work ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 2/10/2011.(DWH) |
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
Search for this case: STAGGS v ASTRUE | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.