Klement v. Astrue

Klement v. Astrue

Plaintiff:	Laurene Klement
Defendant:	Michael J. Astrue
Case Number:	1:2008cv00640
Filed:	June 19, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office:	Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI Office
County:	Schenectady
Presiding Judge:	Lawrence E. Kahn
Presiding Judge:	George H. Lowe
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
November 16, 2009	Filing 23 DECISION and ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants Motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED; and it is furtherORDERED, that the de cision of the Commissioner is REVERSED; and it is furtherORDERED, that the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on November 16, 2009. (sas)
October 22, 2009	Filing 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is RECOMMENDED that Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be DENIED, the Commissioner's decision be reversed, and the case be remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings. It is ORDERED that failure to object to this R&R by 11/5/2009 or failure to timely request an extension of such time will preclude appellate review. Signed by Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini on 10/22/2009. (mae)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 16, 2009

Filing 23 DECISION and ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants Motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED; and it is furtherORDERED, that the de cision of the Commissioner is REVERSED; and it is furtherORDERED, that the case is REMANDED to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) for further administrative proceedings. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on November 16, 2009. (sas)

October 22, 2009

Filing 18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is RECOMMENDED that Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be DENIED, the Commissioner's decision be reversed, and the case be remanded to the Commissioner pursuant to sentence 4 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings. It is ORDERED that failure to object to this R&R by 11/5/2009 or failure to timely request an extension of such time will preclude appellate review. Signed by Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini on 10/22/2009. (mae)

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Klement 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: Laurene Klement
Represented By:	Louise Marie Tarantino
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?