Stugart v. Commissioner of Social Security

Justia Dockets & Filings Third Circuit Pennsylvania Middle District Stugart v. Commissioner of Social Security

Stugart v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff:	Justin Stugart
Defendant:	Commissioner of Social Security
Case Number:	3:2014cv01291
Filed:	July 3, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Office:	Scranton Office
County:	Lycoming
Presiding Judge:	Richard P. Conaboy
Nature of Suit:	Supplemental Security Income
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
February 18, 2015	Filing 15 MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)The Court, having examined the entire record in this case and having reviewed the ALJs decision, is not convinced that the outcome here is based upon substantial evidence of record that a reasonabl e mind accept as adequate to support a conclusion as required by Richardson v. Perales, supra. Thus, the Court will require that the Commissioner provide a revised decision that provides a clearer explanation of why claimants complaints of pain were deemed to be exaggerated and precisely what elements of the record provide the foundation for the ALJs determination of Plaintiffs residual functional capacity. In the alternative, the Commissioner may issue an opinion awarding the Plaintiff DIB benefits inasmuch as there is certainly substantial evidence of record supporting that outcome. An Order consistent with these determinations will be filed simultaneously herewith. BY THE COURTSigned by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 2/18/15. (cc)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 18, 2015

Filing 15 MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)The Court, having examined the entire record in this case and having reviewed the ALJs decision, is not convinced that the outcome here is based upon substantial evidence of record that a reasonabl e mind accept as adequate to support a conclusion as required by Richardson v. Perales, supra. Thus, the Court will require that the Commissioner provide a revised decision that provides a clearer explanation of why claimants complaints of pain were deemed to be exaggerated and precisely what elements of the record provide the foundation for the ALJs determination of Plaintiffs residual functional capacity. In the alternative, the Commissioner may issue an opinion awarding the Plaintiff DIB benefits inasmuch as there is certainly substantial evidence of record supporting that outcome. An Order consistent with these determinations will be filed simultaneously herewith. BY THE COURTSigned by Honorable Richard P. Conaboy on 2/18/15. (cc)

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 Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Stugart 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: Justin Stugart
Represented By:	Norman M. Lubin
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
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?