Wharton v. Berryhill

Wharton v. Berryhill

Plaintiff:	Theoplous Wharton
Defendant:	Nancy A Berryhill
Case Number:	1:2017cv01247
Filed:	February 17, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
Presiding Judge:	Laura Taylor Swain
Nature of Suit:	Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
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 28, 2019	Filing 35 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: for 29 Report and Recommendation. The Court therefore adopts the Report in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, and D efendant's cross-motion is denied. The Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application is reversed and the matter is remanded pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for rehearing. On rema nd, the ALJ is ordered to (a) re-evaluate the Questionnaire completed by Plaintiff's treating physician in light of the issues and information discussed in the Report; and (b) assess all of the limitations caused by Plaintiff's severe impai rments, including his diabetes and his spine and knee impairments.This Order resolves docket entry nos. 24 and 26. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 3/28/2019) (ama) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

Date Filed

Document Text

March 28, 2019

Filing 35 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: for 29 Report and Recommendation. The Court therefore adopts the Report in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted, and D efendant's cross-motion is denied. The Commissioner's decision denying Plaintiff's application is reversed and the matter is remanded pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for rehearing. On rema nd, the ALJ is ordered to (a) re-evaluate the Questionnaire completed by Plaintiff's treating physician in light of the issues and information discussed in the Report; and (b) assess all of the limitations caused by Plaintiff's severe impai rments, including his diabetes and his spine and knee impairments.This Order resolves docket entry nos. 24 and 26. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 3/28/2019) (ama) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

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: Wharton 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: Theoplous Wharton
Represented By:	Robert H. Baumgarten
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
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?