Whitzell v. Astrue
Plaintiff: Pamela M. Whitzell
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 1:2009cv11026
Filed: June 16, 2009
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office: Boston Office
County: Bristol
Presiding Judge: William G. Young
Presiding Judge:
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)
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
July 28, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 17 Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM of DECISION: This Court DENIES Whitzell's motion to reverse or remand ECF No. 12 and GRANTS the Commissioner's motion for an order affirming the decision of the hearing officer, ECF No. 15 . Judgment shall enter for the Commissioner. SO ORDERED...(Paine, Matthew)
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 Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Whitzell v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Pamela M. Whitzell
Represented By: Morris Greenberg
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: Michael J. 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 ]

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?