Cases 1 - 10 of 2,104
JANICK v. COLVIN
as 2:2025cv00111
Plaintiff:
JOHN W. JANICK
Defendant:
CAROLYN COLVIN
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 0405 (g) Social Security (RSI)
Ward v. Colvin
as 3:2025cv00110
Plaintiff:
Theresa Ward
Defendant:
Carolyn Colvin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Diaz v. Colvin
as 4:2025cv00367
Plaintiff:
Waldo Balmore Diaz
Defendant:
Carolyn Colvin
Interested Party:
Social Security Administration-Office of General Counsel
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)
Arzadon v. Colvin
as 3:2025cv00714
Plaintiff:
Emmanuel Villanueva Arzadon
Defendant:
Carolyn Colvin and SSA (INTERESTED PARTY / NEF)
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
Kathleen Burckhardt v. Carolyn Colvin
as 8:2025cv00111
Plaintiff:
Kathleen Burckhardt
Defendant:
Carolyn Colvin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Jose Amesquita v. Carolyn Colvin
as 5:2025cv00168
Plaintiff:
Jose Amesquita
Defendant:
Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 416 Denial of Social Security Benefits
Lamon Wright v. Carolyn Colvin
as 5:2025cv00169
Plaintiff:
Lamon Wright
Defendant:
Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 416 Denial of Social Security Benefits
Teresa Torres-Martinez v. Carolyn Colvin
as 5:2025cv00177
Plaintiff:
Teresa Torres-Martinez
Defendant:
Carolyn Colvin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Kenia Mazariegos v. Carolyn Colvin
as 5:2025cv00178
Plaintiff:
Kenia Mazariegos
Defendant:
Carolyn Colvin
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Rodrigo Santiago v. Carolyn Colvin
as 5:2025cv00159
Plaintiff:
Rodrigo Simeon Santiago, Jr.
Defendant:
Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 205 Denial Social Security Benefits
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.