HAGAN v. ASTRUE

HAGAN v. ASTRUE

Plaintiff:	DANIEL HAGAN
Defendant:	MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Case Number:	2:2009cv04541
Filed:	October 2, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Office:	Philadelphia Office
County:	Delaware
Presiding Judge:	JAMES KNOLL GARDNER
Nature of Suit:	None
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 3, 2011	Filing 12 ORDER THAT MAGISTRATE JUDGE RUETER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REMAND IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF DANIEL HAGAN AND AGAINST DEFENDANT MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DECISION OF THECOMMISSIONER DATED JULY 23, 2007 AND AFFIRMED BY THE APPEALS COUNCIL ON JULY 31, 2009 WHICH DENIED BENEFITS TO PLAINTIFF DANIEL HAGAN IS REVERSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U .S.C. § 405(G) THIS MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECORD IN ACCORDANCE CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE RUETER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 3/3/11. 3/3/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(er, )

Date Filed

Document Text

March 3, 2011

Filing 12 ORDER THAT MAGISTRATE JUDGE RUETER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR REVIEW IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR REMAND IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF DANIEL HAGAN AND AGAINST DEFENDANT MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE DECISION OF THECOMMISSIONER DATED JULY 23, 2007 AND AFFIRMED BY THE APPEALS COUNCIL ON JULY 31, 2009 WHICH DENIED BENEFITS TO PLAINTIFF DANIEL HAGAN IS REVERSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U .S.C. § 405(G) THIS MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECORD IN ACCORDANCE CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE RUETER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 3/3/11. 3/3/11 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(er, )

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 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: HAGAN 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: DANIEL HAGAN
Represented By:	MICHAEL PATRICK BOYLE
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?