Whipple v. Berryhill

Whipple v. Berryhill

Plaintiff:	Daniel E. Whipple
Defendant:	Nancy A. Berryhill
Case Number:	5:2017cv00271
Filed:	March 8, 2017
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
May 6, 2019	Filing 20 DECISION AND ORDER regarding Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Attorney Fees : Attorney Howard Olinsky, Esq. is hereby awarded the sum of $22,051.00 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 Commissioner from the past due benefits awarded to plaintiff. Attorney Howard Olinsky, Esq. is hereby directed to refund to plaintiff the sum of $5,800 previously awarded in this matter as attorney's fees pursuant to EAJA. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 5/6/2019. (sal )
November 22, 2017	Filing 13 JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED That the 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 bene fits under the Social Security Act, is VACATED. The matter is hereby REMANDED to the Acting Commissioner, without a directed finding of disability, for further proceedings consistent with this determination pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (rep)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 6, 2019

Filing 20 DECISION AND ORDER regarding Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Attorney Fees : Attorney Howard Olinsky, Esq. is hereby awarded the sum of $22,051.00 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 Commissioner from the past due benefits awarded to plaintiff. Attorney Howard Olinsky, Esq. is hereby directed to refund to plaintiff the sum of $5,800 previously awarded in this matter as attorney's fees pursuant to EAJA. Signed by Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles on 5/6/2019. (sal )

November 22, 2017

Filing 13 JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED That the 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 bene fits under the Social Security Act, is VACATED. The matter is hereby REMANDED to the Acting Commissioner, without a directed finding of disability, for further proceedings consistent with this determination pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (rep)

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: Whipple v. Berryhill
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Daniel E. Whipple
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: Nancy A. Berryhill
Represented By:	Benil Abraham
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?