Worthington v. Astrue

Worthington v. Astrue

Plaintiff:	Margaret Rascoe Worthington
Defendant:	Michael J. Astrue
Case Number:	7:2011cv00207
Filed:	September 29, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
Office:	Southern Division Office
County:	NEWHANOVER
Presiding Judge:	Louise Wood Flanagan
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
December 12, 2012	Filing 56 ORDER granting 55 Motion to Stay on 406(b) Fees - Because the amount of past-due benefits and attorney's fees is unknown at this time, the Court orders that ifthe plaintiff's attorney seeks attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. &# 167;§ 406(b) or 1383(d)(2) in the future he must file a motion for approval of such fees no later than thirty (30) days after the date of the last Social Security Award Notice sent to the plaintiff's counsel at the conclusion of the Agency's past-due benefit calculation. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 12/12/2012. (Baker, C.)
September 12, 2012	Filing 53 JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED in accordance with the court's order entered September 12, 2012, and for the reasons set forth more specifically therein, that plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted and defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied. This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's final order. Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 9/12/2012. (Baker, C.)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 12, 2012

Filing 56 ORDER granting 55 Motion to Stay on 406(b) Fees - Because the amount of past-due benefits and attorney's fees is unknown at this time, the Court orders that ifthe plaintiff's attorney seeks attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. &# 167;§ 406(b) or 1383(d)(2) in the future he must file a motion for approval of such fees no later than thirty (30) days after the date of the last Social Security Award Notice sent to the plaintiff's counsel at the conclusion of the Agency's past-due benefit calculation. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 12/12/2012. (Baker, C.)

September 12, 2012

Filing 53 JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED in accordance with the court's order entered September 12, 2012, and for the reasons set forth more specifically therein, that plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted and defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied. This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's final order. Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 9/12/2012. (Baker, C.)

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 North Carolina Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Worthington v. Astrue
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| 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 ]
Plaintiff: Margaret Rascoe Worthington
Represented By:	James B. Gillespie, Jr.
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?