Cases 121 - 130 of 15,186
Uselton v. Commissioner
as 8:2024cv00685
Plaintiff:
Cody Uselton
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Interested Party:
SSA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Henderson v. O'Malley
as 2:2024cv00170
Plaintiff:
Adam Daniel Henderson
Defendant:
Martin J. O'Malley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Lombardi v. O'Malley, Commissioner of Social Security
as 9:2024cv80311
Plaintiff:
David William Batchelder
Defendant:
Martin O'Malley, Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 0205 Denial Social Security Benefits
Munoz v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 1:2024cv20992
Plaintiff:
Roxana Yissel Munoz
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 0405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Anderson, III v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 2:2024cv00238
Plaintiff:
Robert Joseph Anderson, III
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Interested Party:
SSA
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Williams v. O'Malley
as 0:2024cv60400
Plaintiff:
Anna Maria Williams
Defendant:
Martin O'Malley
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 0405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Joseph Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 24-10771
Plaintiff:
JOSEPH DAVIS
Defendant:
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Maribel Perez v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
as 24-10770
Plaintiff:
MARIBEL PEREZ
Defendant:
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Aponte v. Commissioner of Social Security
as 9:2024cv80275
Plaintiff:
Hector R Aponte
Defendant:
Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 0405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Oakes v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration
as 1:2024cv01069
Plaintiff:
Jonathan Lee Oakes
Defendant:
Commissioner, Social Security Administration
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
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.
