Legal Opinion

Stonick v. Saul

District Court, D. Connecticut

Decided October 19, 2020No. 3:19-cv-01334Unknown

1Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Curt Stonick, Plaintiff, Civil No. 3:19-cv-01334 (TOF) v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. October 19, 2020 RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS The Plaintiff, Curt Stonick, appeals the final decision of the Defendant, Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security (“the Commissioner”), on his application for Title XVI Supplemental Security Income benefits. This appeal is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on the asserted basis that Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Deidre R. Horton erred in evaluating the Plaintiff’s evidence…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Richardson v. PeralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Biestek v. BerryhillSupreme Court of the United States · 2019
  3. Brault v. Social Security AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012
  4. Burgess v. AstrueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
  5. McIntyre v. ColvinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API