Allen v. Commissioner of Social Security

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Southern District Allen v. Commissioner of Social Security

Allen v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff:	Denise Allen
Defendant:	Commissioner of Social Security
Case Number:	3:2017cv00052
Filed:	February 14, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office:	Dayton Office
County:	MONTGOMERY
Presiding Judge:	Michael J. Newman
Presiding Judge:	Thomas M. Rose
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
November 21, 2017	Filing 16 ORDER -(1) APPROVING THE PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION FOR AN AWARD UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 15 AND AWARDING PLAINTIFF $3,112.50 in EAJA FEES AND COSTS. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 11-21-2017. (de)
August 22, 2017	Filing 13 ORDER GRANTING 11 Joint Stipulation filed by Commissioner of Social Security - This case shall be remanded back to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings, pursuant to Sentence Four of Section 205 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g), for further development of the record. On remand, the Administrative Law Judge will offer Plaintiff the opportunity for a hearing, take further action to complete the administrative record and issue a new decision. As part of said proceedings, the administrative Law Judge will reweigh the medical opinions and account for all of Plaintiff's limitations in the RFC finding. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 8-22-2017. (de)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 21, 2017

Filing 16 ORDER -(1) APPROVING THE PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION FOR AN AWARD UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 15 AND AWARDING PLAINTIFF $3,112.50 in EAJA FEES AND COSTS. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 11-21-2017. (de)

August 22, 2017

Filing 13 ORDER GRANTING 11 Joint Stipulation filed by Commissioner of Social Security - This case shall be remanded back to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings, pursuant to Sentence Four of Section 205 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g), for further development of the record. On remand, the Administrative Law Judge will offer Plaintiff the opportunity for a hearing, take further action to complete the administrative record and issue a new decision. As part of said proceedings, the administrative Law Judge will reweigh the medical opinions and account for all of Plaintiff's limitations in the RFC finding. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 8-22-2017. (de)

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: Allen 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: Denise Allen
Represented By:	Stephanie D Dobson
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?