Legal Opinion
Ortiz v. Colvin
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided January 4, 2017No. Civil Action No. 16-1642 (SDW)PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WIGENTON, District Judge.
Before this Court is Plaintiff Rose M. Ortiz’s (“Plaintiff’ or “Ortiz”) appeal of the final administrative decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) that Plaintiff is not disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act (the “Act”). This appeal is decided without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). For the reasons set forth below, the Commissioner’s decision is VACATED and REMANDED…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Richardson v. PeralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Consolo v. Federal Maritime CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Daniel P. Cotter v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1981
- Ethel Burnett v. Commissioner of Social Security AdministrationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- FITZPATRICK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITYDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2020
- GONZALEZ AGOSTINI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITYDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2022
- RICE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITYDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2022