Nuzzo v. Astrue

Nuzzo v. Astrue

Plaintiff:	Cynthia A. Nuzzo
Defendant:	Michael J. Astrue
Case Number:	1:2012cv02373
Filed:	May 14, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Brooklyn Office
Presiding Judge:	Frederic Block
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
April 14, 2014	Filing 32 MEMORANDUM & ORDER: The Plaintiffs motion 25 for fees under the EAJA is granted in the reduced amount of $2,749.64, and costs in the amount of $350, for a total of $3,099.64. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 4/14/2014. (Innelli, Michael)
June 11, 2013	Filing 23 MEMORANDUM and ORDER: The Commissioners motion 16 for remand for further proceedings is granted, and Nuzzos motion 14 for remand solely for calculation of benefits is denied. On remand, the ALJ should reconsider the opinions of Dr. Han, Dr. Robin son, Dr. Lewin, and Dr. Roa, and should contact them to resolve any inconsistencies and ambiguities. After considering this evidence in light of the entire record and re-determining Nuzzos RFC, the ALJ should reassess Nuzzos subjective complaints and elicit new VE testimony if needed. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 6/11/2013. (Innelli, Michael)

Date Filed

Document Text

April 14, 2014

Filing 32 MEMORANDUM & ORDER: The Plaintiffs motion 25 for fees under the EAJA is granted in the reduced amount of $2,749.64, and costs in the amount of $350, for a total of $3,099.64. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 4/14/2014. (Innelli, Michael)

June 11, 2013

Filing 23 MEMORANDUM and ORDER: The Commissioners motion 16 for remand for further proceedings is granted, and Nuzzos motion 14 for remand solely for calculation of benefits is denied. On remand, the ALJ should reconsider the opinions of Dr. Han, Dr. Robin son, Dr. Lewin, and Dr. Roa, and should contact them to resolve any inconsistencies and ambiguities. After considering this evidence in light of the entire record and re-determining Nuzzos RFC, the ALJ should reassess Nuzzos subjective complaints and elicit new VE testimony if needed. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 6/11/2013. (Innelli, Michael)

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: Nuzzo 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:	Candace Scott Appleton
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: Cynthia A. Nuzzo
Represented By:	Charles E. Binder
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?