Bradford v. Social Security Administration

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Tennessee Middle District Bradford v. Social Security Administration

Bradford v. Social Security Administration

Plaintiff:	Kathy Darlene Bradford
Defendant:	Social Security Administration
Case Number:	3:2011cv00518
Filed:	June 2, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Office:	Nashville Office
County:	Cheatham
Presiding Judge:	Juliet E. Griffin
Presiding Judge:	John T. Nixon
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
June 24, 2013	Filing 31 ORDER: The Court GRANTS the Motion (Doc. No. 29 ). However, attorneys may not recover both EAJA and § 406(b) fees in the same case and must refund the smaller amount to the plaintiff in the event that both fees are awarded. Jankovich v. Bowen , 868 F.2d 867, 871 n.1 Motion for Attorney Fees (6th Cir. 1989). The Court ORDERS Plaintiff's counsel to refund to Plaintiff the $5,505.41 EAJA fee the Court previously awarded to Plaintiff's counsel. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 6/12/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(la) Modified text on 6/25/2013 (la).
November 23, 2011	Filing 21 ORDER: On October 24, 2011, the defendant filed a motion for remand (Docket Entry No. 15), which the plaintiff did not oppose. See Docket Entry No. 17, and Docket Entry No. 20, at 1. As a result, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the admin istrative record (Docket Entry No. 13) is rendered MOOT, and the Clerk is directed to terminate that motion as pending. The Clerk is directed to forward the file in this case to the Honorable John T. Nixon for his consideration of the defendant' ;s unopposed motion to remand and accompanying memorandum (Docket Entry Nos. 15 and 16), and to include in any order of remand the following language, to which both parties agree: On remand, the Agency will address the plaintiff's request to reo pen prior disability determinations, address her headache impairment, further evaluate medical opinion and residual functional capacity issues, and obtain and evaluate vocational evidence under applicable law. Further, the Magistrate Judge recommend s that the order also include the following language: 29 C.F.R. § 404.936, § 416.1436, § 404.950, and § 416.1450 shall apply to the scheduling of the hearing before the ALJ. Unless otherwise directed by the Court or upon motion of the parties, there will be no further proceedings before the Magistrate Judge in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin on 11/23/11. (SEE ORDER FOR OTHER DETAILS)(af)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 24, 2013

Filing 31 ORDER: The Court GRANTS the Motion (Doc. No. 29 ). However, attorneys may not recover both EAJA and § 406(b) fees in the same case and must refund the smaller amount to the plaintiff in the event that both fees are awarded. Jankovich v. Bowen , 868 F.2d 867, 871 n.1 Motion for Attorney Fees (6th Cir. 1989). The Court ORDERS Plaintiff's counsel to refund to Plaintiff the $5,505.41 EAJA fee the Court previously awarded to Plaintiff's counsel. It is so ORDERED. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Nixon on 6/12/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(la) Modified text on 6/25/2013 (la).

November 23, 2011

Filing 21 ORDER: On October 24, 2011, the defendant filed a motion for remand (Docket Entry No. 15), which the plaintiff did not oppose. See Docket Entry No. 17, and Docket Entry No. 20, at 1. As a result, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the admin istrative record (Docket Entry No. 13) is rendered MOOT, and the Clerk is directed to terminate that motion as pending. The Clerk is directed to forward the file in this case to the Honorable John T. Nixon for his consideration of the defendant' ;s unopposed motion to remand and accompanying memorandum (Docket Entry Nos. 15 and 16), and to include in any order of remand the following language, to which both parties agree: On remand, the Agency will address the plaintiff's request to reo pen prior disability determinations, address her headache impairment, further evaluate medical opinion and residual functional capacity issues, and obtain and evaluate vocational evidence under applicable law. Further, the Magistrate Judge recommend s that the order also include the following language: 29 C.F.R. § 404.936, § 416.1436, § 404.950, and § 416.1450 shall apply to the scheduling of the hearing before the ALJ. Unless otherwise directed by the Court or upon motion of the parties, there will be no further proceedings before the Magistrate Judge in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Juliet E. Griffin on 11/23/11. (SEE ORDER FOR OTHER DETAILS)(af)

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

Search for this case: Bradford v. Social Security Administration
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Social Security Administration
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 ]
Plaintiff: Kathy Darlene Bradford
Represented By:	Phillip Alan George
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?