Legal Opinion
Marrero v. Apfel
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 16, 2000No. 94 CIV. 2602(SHS)PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION & ORDER
STEIN, District Judge.
Plaintiff David Davila Marrero brings this pro se action pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), to challenge a final determination by defendant Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, denying him Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits. The Commissioner has moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Because, as set forth below, substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s determination, defendant’s motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
I. Procedural history
On October 7,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Richardson v. PeralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Ysabel Rosa v. John S. Callahan, Acting Commissioner of Social SecurityCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Rita Schaal v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, 1 Dockets 96-6212, 96-6316Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Murphy v. Zoning Commission of the Town of New MilfordDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2003
- Frias v. Commissioner of Social SecurityDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2016