Sarner v. Astrue

Sarner v. Astrue

Plaintiff:	Philip Sarner
Defendant:	Michael J. Astrue
Case Number:	2:2008cv03281
Filed:	September 22, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI Office
County:	Nassau
Presiding Judge:	Joanna Seybert
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By:	42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

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
May 22, 2012	Filing 47 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 22 Motion to Dismiss. Because the Court is concerned that the Commissioner did not properly determine that Plaintiff's drug or alcohol abuse was a contributing factor material to his disability prior to March 1 , 2005, this case is hereby remanded for a fuller explanation of the Commissioner's rationale. The Commissioner's motion (Docket Entry 22) is DENIED, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of this decision and to mark this matter CLOSED. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 5/22/12. C/M; C/ECF (Valle, Christine)
January 15, 2010	Filing 39 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 38 Motion to Appoint Counsel. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's application for appointment of counsel is DENIED. However, the Court may appoint counsel on its own accord at a later point, without Plaintiff's reapplication, if it finds that the circumstances of the proceeding have changed such that appointment of counsel is warranted. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 1/15/10. C/M; C/ECF (Valle, Christine)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 22, 2012

Filing 47 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 22 Motion to Dismiss. Because the Court is concerned that the Commissioner did not properly determine that Plaintiff's drug or alcohol abuse was a contributing factor material to his disability prior to March 1 , 2005, this case is hereby remanded for a fuller explanation of the Commissioner's rationale. The Commissioner's motion (Docket Entry 22) is DENIED, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to mail Plaintiff a copy of this decision and to mark this matter CLOSED. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 5/22/12. C/M; C/ECF (Valle, Christine)

January 15, 2010

Filing 39 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 38 Motion to Appoint Counsel. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's application for appointment of counsel is DENIED. However, the Court may appoint counsel on its own accord at a later point, without Plaintiff's reapplication, if it finds that the circumstances of the proceeding have changed such that appointment of counsel is warranted. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 1/15/10. C/M; C/ECF (Valle, Christine)

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: Sarner 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: Philip Sarner
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:	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 ]

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?