Oakes v. Commissioner of Social Security
5:2006cv00332 |
March 15, 2006 |
US District Court for the Northern District of New York |
Syracuse Office |
Gustave J. DiBianco |
Lawrence E. Kahn |
Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID) |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 20 DECISION & ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further ORDERED, that Defendants Motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED, that Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on April 23, 2009. (sas) |
Filing 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Recommending the Deft's motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be DENIED; Recommending the Pltf's motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and REMANDED for further proceedings. Objections to R&R due by 3/19/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini on 3/5/09. (amt) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Oakes v. Commissioner of Social Security | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.