Pierson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Tennessee Eastern District Pierson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Pierson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner

Plaintiff:	Tammy L Pierson
Defendant:	Social Security Administration, Commissioner
Case Number:	3:2010cv00053
Filed:	February 11, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Office:	Knoxville Office
County:	Claiborne
Presiding Judge:	Thomas W Phillips
Presiding Judge:	C Clifford Shirley
Nature of Suit:	Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
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
October 20, 2011	Filing 23 ORDER adopting 22 the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, granting 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees, and a judgment awarding Plaintiff the amount of two thousand one hundred and fifty-one dollars and forty cents ($2,151.40) for attorney fees is ENTERED. Signed by District Judge Thomas W Phillips on October 20, 2011. (AYB)
March 17, 2011	Filing 18 ORDER that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment 15 is DENIED and Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 13 is GRANTED, to the extent that this case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent wit h this Order. On Remand, the ALJ must consider Plaintiff's mental limitations, along with Plaintiff's physical limitations, in making the residual functional capacity determination. Specifically, the ALJ must consider and discuss Dr. Pannocchia's opinion regarding Plaintiff's mental work-related limitations. Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 3/17/11. (ABF)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 20, 2011

Filing 23 ORDER adopting 22 the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, granting 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees, and a judgment awarding Plaintiff the amount of two thousand one hundred and fifty-one dollars and forty cents ($2,151.40) for attorney fees is ENTERED. Signed by District Judge Thomas W Phillips on October 20, 2011. (AYB)

March 17, 2011

Filing 18 ORDER that the Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment 15 is DENIED and Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 13 is GRANTED, to the extent that this case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent wit h this Order. On Remand, the ALJ must consider Plaintiff's mental limitations, along with Plaintiff's physical limitations, in making the residual functional capacity determination. Specifically, the ALJ must consider and discuss Dr. Pannocchia's opinion regarding Plaintiff's mental work-related limitations. Signed by District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 3/17/11. (ABF)

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

Search for this case: Pierson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Tammy L Pierson
Represented By:	Dale L Buchanan
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: Social Security Administration, Commissioner
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?