Showing posts with label SSA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SSA. Show all posts
Seventh Circuit: Nancy Thomas v. Carolyn Colvin
Administrative, SSA
Although the opinon of a specialist is preferred, a diagnosis in a specialist area is not per se inadmissible.
Uncritical acceptance of reviewing physicians' opinions on overall impairment where there is evidence to the contrary from the initial diagnosis does not suffice in review for substantial evidence.
Nancy Thomas v. Carolyn Colvin
Sixth Circuit: Cheryl Minor v. Comm'r of Social Security
Fees
Court's adoption of magistrate's lodestar fees calculation was insufficiently explained, as court adopted statutory cap contrary to state bar numbers and disputed amount of time spent.
Cheryl Minor v. Comm'r of Social Security
Court's adoption of magistrate's lodestar fees calculation was insufficiently explained, as court adopted statutory cap contrary to state bar numbers and disputed amount of time spent.
Cheryl Minor v. Comm'r of Social Security
Eighth Circuit: Travis Chaney v. Carolyn W. Colvin
SSA
ALJ's less than fully credible conclusions are nonetheless supported by substantial evidence.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/02/143433P.pdf
ALJ's less than fully credible conclusions are nonetheless supported by substantial evidence.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/02/143433P.pdf
Sixth Circuit: Ronald Miller v. Comm'r of Social Security
SSA
Insufficient evidence for ALJ finding, given medical facts in evidence.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0020p-06.pdf
Insufficient evidence for ALJ finding, given medical facts in evidence.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0020p-06.pdf
Eighth Circuit: Charles Mitchael v. Carolyn W. Colvin
SSA, FRCP
As the question of retroactive application of a claims adjudication does not present an objective nondiscretionary agency duty, Federal jurisdiction under the mandamus statute is improper.
No equal protection or due process claim, as rules on retroactive application constitute a legitimate procedural bar, and plaintiffs did not challenge constitutionality of old rule in initial proceeding.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143220P.pdf
As the question of retroactive application of a claims adjudication does not present an objective nondiscretionary agency duty, Federal jurisdiction under the mandamus statute is improper.
No equal protection or due process claim, as rules on retroactive application constitute a legitimate procedural bar, and plaintiffs did not challenge constitutionality of old rule in initial proceeding.
http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143220P.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)