Reed v. SSA

Reed v. SSA

Plaintiff:	Danny Lenn Reed
Defendant:	Commissioner of SSA
Case Number:	5:2016cv00375
Filed:	October 3, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Office:	Lexington Office
County:	Montgomery
Presiding Judge:	David L. Bunning
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 18, 2019	Filing 40 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: denying 37 FIRST MOTION for Attorney Fees by Danny Lenn Reed filed by Danny Lenn Reed. The Government's position was substantially justified, the Fee Motions in this case pursuant to the EAJA are DENIED. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 11/18/19.(JLM)cc: COR
July 12, 2019	Filing 34 JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. The Commissioner's Motions to Remand pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) are DENIED; 2. The Commissioner's decisions denying Plaintiffs disability claims onredetermination are hereby REVERSED; 3. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), these matters are REMANDED to the SSA for further proceedings consistent with the Sixth Circuit's decision in Hicks v. Commissioner of Social Security, 909 F.3d 786 (6th Cir. 201 8); 4. These matters are STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court, to be restored to the active docket upon motion by any party for good cause shown; 5. This is a FINAL AND APPEALABLE JUDGMENT and there is NO JUST CAUSE FOR DELAY. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 7/12/2019.(KM)cc: COR

Date Filed

Document Text

November 18, 2019

Filing 40 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: denying 37 FIRST MOTION for Attorney Fees by Danny Lenn Reed filed by Danny Lenn Reed. The Government's position was substantially justified, the Fee Motions in this case pursuant to the EAJA are DENIED. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 11/18/19.(JLM)cc: COR

July 12, 2019

Filing 34 JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. The Commissioner's Motions to Remand pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) are DENIED; 2. The Commissioner's decisions denying Plaintiffs disability claims onredetermination are hereby REVERSED; 3. Pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), these matters are REMANDED to the SSA for further proceedings consistent with the Sixth Circuit's decision in Hicks v. Commissioner of Social Security, 909 F.3d 786 (6th Cir. 201 8); 4. These matters are STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court, to be restored to the active docket upon motion by any party for good cause shown; 5. This is a FINAL AND APPEALABLE JUDGMENT and there is NO JUST CAUSE FOR DELAY. Signed by Judge David L. Bunning on 7/12/2019.(KM)cc: COR

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 Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Reed v. SSA
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Danny Lenn Reed
Represented By:	Jennifer L. Fisher
Represented By:	Glenda Harrison
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 ]
Defendant: Commissioner of SSA
Represented By:	John S. Osborn, III(Designation Assistant U.S. Attorney)
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?