Legal Opinion
Hockensmith v. Astrue
District Court, D. Delaware
Decided November 30, 2012No. Civ. No. 10-961-SLRPublished
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge.
1. INTRODUCTION
Arnold R. Hockensmith (“plaintiff’) appeals from a decision of Michael J. Astrue, the Commissioner of Social Security (“defendant”), denying his applications for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) and Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) under Title II and Title XVI, of the Social Security Act (the “Act”). 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-434, 1381-1383Í. The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).1
Currently before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. (D.I. 18, 29, 32)2 Plaintiff seeks remand for a…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Bowen v. YuckertSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Barnhart v. ThomasSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Joyce A. Rutherford v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of the Social Security AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.