Jones v. Astrue

Jones v. Astrue

Plaintiff:	Jeanette Jones
Defendant:	Michael J. Astrue
Case Number:	1:2009cv05577
Filed:	June 17, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	New York
Presiding Judge:	Unassigned
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
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
September 28, 2012	Filing 16 ADOPTION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 8 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Jeanette Jones, 6 Motion to Dismiss filed by Michael J. Astrue, 13 Report and Recommendations. Having conducted an independent de novo review of the speci fically objected-to portions of the Report and having reviewed for clear error the portions of the Report without objections, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Frank Maas dated July 15, 2011 be and the same hereby is APPROVED, ADOPTED, and RATIFIED AS MODIFIED HEREIN by the Court; 2. Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED IN PART; 3. The case i s to be REMANDED to the Commissioner for further consideration of the credibility of Plaintiff's complaints regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms. The Commissioner is to use the Curry standard when undergoing the Step Five analysis; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE the docket in this matter. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 9/28/2012) (lmb)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 28, 2012

Filing 16 ADOPTION OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 8 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Jeanette Jones, 6 Motion to Dismiss filed by Michael J. Astrue, 13 Report and Recommendations. Having conducted an independent de novo review of the speci fically objected-to portions of the Report and having reviewed for clear error the portions of the Report without objections, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Frank Maas dated July 15, 2011 be and the same hereby is APPROVED, ADOPTED, and RATIFIED AS MODIFIED HEREIN by the Court; 2. Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED, and Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED IN PART; 3. The case i s to be REMANDED to the Commissioner for further consideration of the credibility of Plaintiff's complaints regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms. The Commissioner is to use the Curry standard when undergoing the Step Five analysis; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE the docket in this matter. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 9/28/2012) (lmb)

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

Search for this case: Jones 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: Jeanette Jones
Represented By:	Carolyn A. Kubitschek
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?