SMITH v. ASTRUE

SMITH v. ASTRUE

Plaintiff:	TINA L. SMITH
Defendant:	MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Case Number:	2:2010cv00911
Filed:	July 9, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Office:	Pittsburgh Office
County:	Westmoreland
Presiding Judge:	Robert C. Mitchell
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
January 26, 2011	Filing 17 ORDER indicating that after the plaintiff, Tina L. Smith, filed an action in the above-captioned case seeking review of the Social Security Commissioner's final determination of her claim for a period of disability or for disability insurance be nefits and supplemental security income benefits, and after cross motions for summary judgment were submitted by the parties, and after a Report and Recommendation was filed by the United States Magistrate Judge granting the parties fourteen days aft er being served with a copy to file written objections thereto, and no objections having been filed, and upon independent review of the motion and the record, and upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 16 ), which is adopted as the Opinion of this Court, the cross motions for summary judgment (Docket Nos. 9 and 12 ) are denied without prejudice and the matter is remanded for further evaluation and consideration of plaintiff's possible mental disability. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 1/26/2011. (bdk)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 26, 2011

Filing 17 ORDER indicating that after the plaintiff, Tina L. Smith, filed an action in the above-captioned case seeking review of the Social Security Commissioner's final determination of her claim for a period of disability or for disability insurance be nefits and supplemental security income benefits, and after cross motions for summary judgment were submitted by the parties, and after a Report and Recommendation was filed by the United States Magistrate Judge granting the parties fourteen days aft er being served with a copy to file written objections thereto, and no objections having been filed, and upon independent review of the motion and the record, and upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 16 ), which is adopted as the Opinion of this Court, the cross motions for summary judgment (Docket Nos. 9 and 12 ) are denied without prejudice and the matter is remanded for further evaluation and consideration of plaintiff's possible mental disability. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 1/26/2011. (bdk)

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

Search for this case: SMITH 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: TINA L. SMITH
Represented By:	Robert B. Savoy
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?