• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
5 results

MORGAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Docket 3:09-cv-00103, Indiana Southern District Court (Aug. 6, 2009)
Richard L. Young, presiding, William G. Hussmann, Jr
Morgan
United States of America
cite Cite Docket

WEATHERBEE v. ASTRUE

Docket 4:09-cv-00103, Indiana Southern District Court (July 27, 2009)
Tanya Walton Pratt, presiding, William G. Hussmann, Jr
Social Security - DIWC/DIWW
Cause42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Case Type863 Social Security - DIWC/DIWW
Tags863 Social Security, Diwc / Diww, 863 Social Security, Diwc / Diww
Defendant MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Miscellaneous SSA (Court Use Only)
Miscellaneous USCA (Court Use Only)
...
cite Cite Docket

MCINTOSH v. WEBSTER et al

Docket 2:09-cv-00103, Indiana Southern District Court (Mar. 23, 2009)
Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson, presiding, Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr
Medical Malpractice
DivisionTerre Haute
FlagsCLOSED
Cause28:1442 Petition for Removal
Case Type362 Medical Malpractice
Tags362 Medical Malpractice, Malpractice, Tort, Civil, 362 Medical Malpractice, Malpractice, Tort, Civil
Plaintiff CARL MCINTOSH
Defendant DR. THOMAS WEBSTER
Defendant DR. WILLIAM WILSON
...
cite Cite Docket

ALCON RESEARCH, LTD. et al v. SANDOZ INC.

Docket 1:09-cv-00103, Indiana Southern District Court (Feb. 2, 2009)
Richard L. Young, presiding, William G. Hussmann, Jr
Patent
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Alcon Research, Ltd.
Sandoz Inc.
Alcon Research, LTD.
cite Cite Docket

No. 25 ENTRY ON JUDICIAL REVIEW - The Commissioner's final decision is AFFIRMED

Document WEATHERBEE v. ASTRUE, 4:09-cv-00103, No. 25 (S.D.Ind. Sep. 29, 2010)
Weatherbee crushed his right wrist and suffered a right sided mass of clotted blood (subdural hematoma) and bleeding in the area just outside of his brain (parietal subarachnoid hemorrhage).
This deferential standard of review recognizes that it is the Commissioner=s duty to weigh the evidence, resolve material conflicts, make independent findings of fact, and decide questions of credibility.
This Court finds that the ALJ was not required to make any further inquiries because the VE’s testimony did not present any apparent or obvious conflicts as that term is contemplated under SSR 00-4p and case law.
Harris goes on to state “While recognizing an affirmative duty to inquire into possible discrepancies between a VE’s testimony and the DOT, the Seventh Circuit has not established a singular method by which ALJ’s must elicit potential conflicts”.
It is this Court=s belief that the ALJ satisfied his duty to affirmatively inquire into any inconsistencies when he asked the VE to resolve any differences she may have with the DOT and that the ALJ’s finding were supported by substantial evidence.
cite Cite Document