Pena v. Astrue

Pena v. Astrue

Plaintiff:	Mirian Pena
Defendant:	Michael J. Astrue
Case Number:	1:2010cv02619
Filed:	June 9, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Dora Lizette Irizarry
Nature of Suit:	Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
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
July 8, 2011	Filing 18 ORDER GRANTING THE COMMISSIONER'S 11 Motion to Remand; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS - For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN MEMORANDUM AND O RDER, the Commissioner's motion for remand is granted, the plaintiff's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings and remand solely for the calculation of benefits is denied, and the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner, pursuant to the fou rth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further administrative proceedings, consistent with this Order and the Attached Written Memorandum and Order, at which the Administrative Law Judge will consider the validity of the IQ test administered by Dr. Cochrane, and complete the record, which has gaps from 2007 to 2009. The Commissioner is directed to ensure that the administrative proceedings will be held in an expeditious manner and without any undue delay. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case and to enter judgment. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 7/8/2011. (Irizarry, Dora)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 8, 2011

Filing 18 ORDER GRANTING THE COMMISSIONER'S 11 Motion to Remand; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 13 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS - For the reasons set forth in the ATTACHED WRITTEN MEMORANDUM AND O RDER, the Commissioner's motion for remand is granted, the plaintiff's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings and remand solely for the calculation of benefits is denied, and the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner, pursuant to the fou rth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for further administrative proceedings, consistent with this Order and the Attached Written Memorandum and Order, at which the Administrative Law Judge will consider the validity of the IQ test administered by Dr. Cochrane, and complete the record, which has gaps from 2007 to 2009. The Commissioner is directed to ensure that the administrative proceedings will be held in an expeditious manner and without any undue delay. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case and to enter judgment. SO ORDERED by Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry on 7/8/2011. (Irizarry, Dora)

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 New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Pena v. Astrue
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Represented By:	SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION - GENERIC
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: Mirian Pena
Represented By:	William D Kaplan
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?