SEALS v. COLVIN
Plaintiff: EDDIE R. SEALS
Defendant: CAROLYN W. COLVIN
Miscellaneous: SSA (Court Use Only)
Case Number: 1:2016cv01975
Filed: July 25, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Mark J. Dinsmore
Presiding Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit: Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1383 Review of HHS Decision
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
June 5, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ENTRY REVIEWING THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION - Plaintiff Eddie Seals applied for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income from the Social Security Administration ("SSA") on May 16, 2011, alleging an onset date o f July 15, 2010. [Filing No. 10 -5 at 2-14.] His applications were initially denied on July 5, 2011, [Filing No. 10 -4 at 2-9], and upon reconsideration on September 8, 2011, [Filing No. 10 -4 at 15-28]. Administrative Law Judge Ronald T. Jorda n (the "ALJ") held a hearing on August 29, 2012, [Filing No. 10 -2 at 28-63], and issued a decision on September 25, 2012, concluding that Mr. Seals was not entitled to receive disability insurance benefits or supplemental security inco me, [Filing No. 10 -2 at 11-23]. The Appeals Council denied review on February 20, 2014. [Filing No. 10 -2 at 2-4.] Mr. Seals then filed a civil action, asking the Court to review the denial of benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c). [Filing No. 10 -16 at 3.] On November 14, 2015, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and reversed and remanded the Commissioner's Decision. [Filing No. 10 -16 at 2-13.] The ALJ held a second hearing on February 25, 2016, [Filing No. 10 -15 at 33-71], and issued a decision on March 25, 2016, once again concluding that Mr. Seals was not entitled to receive disability insurance benefits or supplemental security income, [Filing No. 10 -15 at 2-23]. On July 25, 2016, Mr. Seals timely filed this civil action, asking the Court to review the denial of benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c). [Filing No. 1 .]. For the reasons detailed herei n, the Court VACATES the ALJ's decision denying Mr. Seals benefits and REMANDS this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (sentence four). Judgment shall issue accordingly. (See Entry). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/5/2017.(APD)
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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: SEALS v. COLVIN
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: CAROLYN W. COLVIN
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: EDDIE R. SEALS
Represented By: Timothy E. Burns
Represented By: Nicholas Thomas Lavella
Represented By: Joseph R. Wambach
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 ]
Miscellaneous: SSA (Court Use Only)
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?