Emrich v. Commissioner of Social Security
Plaintiff: Dale Emrich
Defendant: Commissioner of Social Security
Case Number: 3:2016cv00291
Filed: July 7, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Dayton Office
County: CLARK
Presiding Judge: Michael J. Newman
Presiding Judge: Walter H. Rice
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 405
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
January 31, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 23 ORDER: (1) APPROVING THE PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION FOR AN AWARD UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT ("EAJA") (DOC. 22 ); (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S PREVIOUSLY FILED MOTION FOR EAJA FEES (DOC. 21 ) AS MOOT; AND (3) AWARDING PLAI NTIFF $6,000.00.00 IN EAJA FEES AND COSTS - This Social Security disability benefits appeal is before the Court on the parties' joint stipulation in which they agree that Plaintiff should be awarded attorney's fees and costs under th e Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, in the amount of $6,000.00.00. Doc. 15. Based upon the parties' stipulation in which they present no dispute that all requirements are met for the reasonable award o f EAJA fees, the Court: (1) APPROVES the parties' joint stipulation (doc. 22 ); (2) DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs previously filed motion for EAJA fees (doc. 21 ); and (3) GRANTS Plaintiff EAJA fees and costs in the amount of $6,000.00.00 pursuant to the parties' stipulation. As no further matters remain pending for review, this case remains TERMINATED upon the Court's docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 1/30/2018. (srb)
August 14, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 15 DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT ANDRECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. # 12 ), AND OVERRULING OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT NANCY A. BERRYHILL, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY (DOC. # 13 ), TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING; JUDGMENT SH ALL ENTER IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF DALE EMRICH AND AGAINST THE DEFENDANT COMMISSIONER, REVERSING THE COMMISSIONER'S DECISION THAT PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DISABLED AND, THEREFORE, NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFITS UNDER THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT, AND REMANDING THE CAPTIONED CAUSE TO THE COMMISSIONER PURSUANT TO THE FOURTH SENTENCE OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) FOR THE IMMEDIATE AWARD OF BENEFITS; TERMINATION ENTRY. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 8/11/17. (pb)
July 6, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT: (1) THE ALJ'S NON-DISABILITY FINDING BE FOUND UNSUPPORTED BY SUBTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND REVERSED UNDER THE FOURTH SENTECE OF 42 U.S.C § 405(g); (2) THIS MATTER BE REMANDED TO THE ALJ FOR AN IMMEDIATE AWARD OF BENEFITS; AND (3) THIS CASE BE CLOSED. Objections to R&R due by 7/20/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 7/6/2017. (srb)
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 Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Emrich 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: Dale Emrich
Represented By: Steven Barry Horenstein
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: John J. Stark
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?