Newell v. Commissioner of Social Security

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Northern District Newell v. Commissioner of Social Security

Newell v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff:	Linda T. Newell
Defendant:	Commissioner of Social Security
Case Number:	5:2017cv00567
Filed:	May 23, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office:	Syracuse Office
County:	Onondaga
Presiding Judge:	Andrew T. Baxter
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
March 21, 2019	Filing 23 DECISION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that Steven R. Dolson, Esq. is hereby awarded the sum of $6,018.25 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 withhe ld by the Commissioner from the past due benefits awarded to plaintiff. It is further ORDERED that Steven R. Dolson, Esq. is hereby directed to refund to plaintiff the sum of $1,900 previously awarded in this matter as attorney's fees pursuant to EAJA. Signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter on 3/21/2019. (nmk)
September 19, 2017	Filing 9 JUDGMENT: It is hereby STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties, through their attorneys, that the Commissioner's final decision be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that judgment be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 in accordance with Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993). (mc)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 21, 2019

Filing 23 DECISION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that Steven R. Dolson, Esq. is hereby awarded the sum of $6,018.25 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 withhe ld by the Commissioner from the past due benefits awarded to plaintiff. It is further ORDERED that Steven R. Dolson, Esq. is hereby directed to refund to plaintiff the sum of $1,900 previously awarded in this matter as attorney's fees pursuant to EAJA. Signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter on 3/21/2019. (nmk)

September 19, 2017

Filing 9 JUDGMENT: It is hereby STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties, through their attorneys, that the Commissioner's final decision be reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that judgment be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 in accordance with Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993). (mc)

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: Newell 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 ]
Plaintiff: Linda T. Newell
Represented By:	Steven R. Dolson
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: Commissioner of Social Security
Represented By:	Sergei Aden
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?