Morris v. Astrue

Morris v. Astrue

Plaintiff:	James Morris
Defendant:	Michael J. Astrue
Case Number:	4:2012cv00189
Filed:	February 3, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office:	St. Louis Office
County:	St. Louis - County
Presiding Judge:	Lewis M. Blanton
Nature of Suit:	Disability Insurance
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 206
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
March 27, 2013	Filing 28 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 22 SOCIAL SECURITY CROSS BRIEF re 17 SOCIAL SECURITY BRIEF re 1 Complaint filed by Defendant Michael J. Astrue, 17 SOCIAL SECURITY BRIEF re 1 Complaint filed by Plaintiff James Morris, 26 SOCIAL SECURITY REPLY BRIEF re 22 SOCIAL SECURITY CROSS BRIEF re 17 SOCIAL SECURITY BRIEF re 1 Complaint filed by Plaintiff James Morris: In sum, the ALJ erred in discrediting the opinions of Dr. Myers and relying on the opinion of Dr. Legarda in dete rmining plaintiff's seizure disorder was nonsevere. As a result, the ALJ's RFC determination, and step four determination are not supported by substantial evidence. For these reasons, this cause will be reversed and remanded to the ALJ in o rder for the ALJ to consider plaintiff's seizure disorder as a severe impairment, accord the proper weight to the opinions of Dr. Myers, and proceed with the sequential analysis. Accordingly, a Judgment of Reversal and Remand will be entered separately in favor of plaintiff in accordance with thisMemorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lewis M. Blanton on 3/27/2013. (JMC)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 27, 2013

Filing 28 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 22 SOCIAL SECURITY CROSS BRIEF re 17 SOCIAL SECURITY BRIEF re 1 Complaint filed by Defendant Michael J. Astrue, 17 SOCIAL SECURITY BRIEF re 1 Complaint filed by Plaintiff James Morris, 26 SOCIAL SECURITY REPLY BRIEF re 22 SOCIAL SECURITY CROSS BRIEF re 17 SOCIAL SECURITY BRIEF re 1 Complaint filed by Plaintiff James Morris: In sum, the ALJ erred in discrediting the opinions of Dr. Myers and relying on the opinion of Dr. Legarda in dete rmining plaintiff's seizure disorder was nonsevere. As a result, the ALJ's RFC determination, and step four determination are not supported by substantial evidence. For these reasons, this cause will be reversed and remanded to the ALJ in o rder for the ALJ to consider plaintiff's seizure disorder as a severe impairment, accord the proper weight to the opinions of Dr. Myers, and proceed with the sequential analysis. Accordingly, a Judgment of Reversal and Remand will be entered separately in favor of plaintiff in accordance with thisMemorandum. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lewis M. Blanton on 3/27/2013. (JMC)

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

Search for this case: Morris 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: James Morris
Represented By:	Brigid A. McNamara
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
Represented By:	Nicholas P. Llewellyn
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?