Broton v. Colvin

Broton v. Colvin

Plaintiff:	Rita M. Broton
Defendant:	Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number:	5:2016cv00262
Filed:	March 4, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office:	Syracuse Office
County:	Onondaga
Presiding Judge:	David E. Peebles
Nature of Suit:	Disability Insurance
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405
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
November 5, 2018	Filing 28 DECISION AND ORDER: that Attorney Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. is hereby awarded the sum of $25,611.50 in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 406(b), as fees pursuant to the firm's fee agreement with plaintiff, to be paid from the amount withheld by the A cting Commissioner from the past due benefits awarded to plaintiff; and that Attorney Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. is hereby directed to refund to plaintiff the sum of $7,900.00 previously awarded in this matter as attorney's fees pursuant to EAJA. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 11/5/2018. (hmr)
December 27, 2016	Filing 16 JUDGMENT: It is Ordered and Adjudged: that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. The Acting Commissioner's determination that plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant times, and thus is not entitled to benefits und er the Social Security Act, is VACATED; and that the matter is hereby REMANDED to the Acting Commissioner, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), without a directed finding of disability, for further proceedings consistent with this determination, all pursuant to the 15 Order. (hmr)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 5, 2018

Filing 28 DECISION AND ORDER: that Attorney Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. is hereby awarded the sum of $25,611.50 in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 406(b), as fees pursuant to the firm's fee agreement with plaintiff, to be paid from the amount withheld by the A cting Commissioner from the past due benefits awarded to plaintiff; and that Attorney Howard D. Olinsky, Esq. is hereby directed to refund to plaintiff the sum of $7,900.00 previously awarded in this matter as attorney's fees pursuant to EAJA. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 11/5/2018. (hmr)

December 27, 2016

Filing 16 JUDGMENT: It is Ordered and Adjudged: that Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. The Acting Commissioner's determination that plaintiff was not disabled at the relevant times, and thus is not entitled to benefits und er the Social Security Act, is VACATED; and that the matter is hereby REMANDED to the Acting Commissioner, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), without a directed finding of disability, for further proceedings consistent with this determination, all pursuant to the 15 Order. (hmr)

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: Broton v. Colvin
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Rita M. Broton
Represented By:	Howard D. Olinsky
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: Carolyn W. Colvin
Represented By:	Joanne Jackson Pengelly
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?