McCaslin v. Colvin
| Christopher S. McCaslin |
| Carolyn W. Colvin |
| 3:2016cv02491 |
| December 16, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Scranton Office |
| Bradford |
| Edwin M. Kosik |
| Disability Insurance |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
31
ORDER re: pltf's supp'l motion for atty's fees 29 - It is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Ct's order of 11/22/19 28 authorizing $20,654 remains in full force & effect.; 2. Ct authorizes addt'l pymt for ct-related svcs to Atty Best in amt of $10,314 in atty's fees being w/held from past-due auxiliary benefits.; 3. Total amt of atty's fees for ct-related svcs to be pd from past-due benefits of pltf & pltf's auxiliary beneficiaries to Atty Best shall be $30,968.; 4. Upon receipt of these funds pltf's atty will refund $6,700 previously pd pursuant to EAJA to the pltf. (See order for commplete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 12/2/19. (ki)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER re: pltf's motion 25 for atty's fees - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Ct authorizes pymt to Atty Best in amt of $20,654.00 in atty's fees being w/held from pltf's past-due benefits for ct-related svcs.; 2. Upon receip t ot this sum, pltf's cnsl shall remit $6,700 directly to pltf, representing sum already pd pltf's cnsl on pltf's behalf pursuant to the EAJA. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 11/22/19. (ki)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER re: stipulation 23 , awarding pltf $6,700 in atty fees under EAJA w/ atty fees to be pd directly to pltf & sente to address of pltf's cnsl Atty Best @ office address w/ full or partial remittance of awarded atty fees contingent upon determination by gov't that pltf owes no qualifying, pre-existing debt(s) to gov't - if such debt(s) exist(s) gov't will reduce awarded atty fees & costs to extent necessary to satisfy same. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 5/23/18. (ki)
|
|
Filing
21
JUDGMENT - Judgment be & is hereby ENTERED in favor of pltf Christopher S. McCaslin & against deft Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, as follows: Commissioner's decision is VACATED & matter REMANDED to Commissioner w/ instructions to conduct new admin hrg, develop record fully & evaluate evidence appropriately in acc w/ ct's order 20 & report 17 of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick. (See jdgmt for complete details.)Signed by Deputy Clerk on 5/17/18. (ki)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: McCaslin v. Colvin | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Christopher S. McCaslin | |
| Represented By: | Patrick J. Best |
| 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: Carolyn W. Colvin | |
| 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.
