Search for: "Marks v. Colvin"
Results 21 - 40
of 46
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Apr 2016, 1:09 pm
Colvin (10th Cir., April 4, 2016) (reversing judgment in favor of Commissioner because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate consulting psychologist's opinion)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
31 Mar 2016, 6:05 pm
Labor Unions*Ortega v. [read post]
16 Mar 2016, 2:11 am
Discrimination/Retaliation*Poll v. [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 9:15 pm
Colvin (10th Cir., March 7, 2016) (affirming denial of disability benefits based upon the medical and psychological reports)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
23 Feb 2016, 12:00 pm
Colvin (10th Cir., February 23, 2016) (affirming denial of benefits)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
13 Feb 2016, 1:10 pm
Colvin (10th Cir., February 11, 2016) (affirming denial of disability benefits based on credibility and physical limitations questions)*Calhoun v. [read post]
6 Jan 2016, 8:56 pm
Colvin (10th Cir., January 4, 2016) (affirming Social Security Administration determination that the plaintiff was not disabled)*Collins v. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 8:42 pm
Colvin (10th Cir., December 21, 2015) (reversing denialof Supplemental Security Income benefits because ALJ failed to properlyconsider treating physician’s opinion)Simmons v. [read post]
28 Dec 2015, 5:29 pm
Colvin (10thCir., December 14, 2015) (affirming denial of social security benefits, based upon the ALJ’s credibility determination)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
11 Dec 2015, 8:15 pm
Colvin (10th Cir., December 10, 2015) (affirming denial of disability insurance benefits)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
28 Nov 2015, 9:35 pm
Discrimination & Retaliation*Cink v. [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 10:00 am
Additional Resources: Social Security disability pressure eased by budget compromise, October 28, 2015, NOLA, by Mark Schleifstein More Blog Entries:Hanson v. [read post]
28 Oct 2015, 5:28 pm
COLVIN (10th Cir., October 20, 2015) (affirming denial of social security benefits)*PHAM v. [read post]
28 Oct 2015, 12:00 am
Colvin (10th Cir., October 15, 2015) (affirming finding of no disability)*Gabriel v. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 7:00 pm
Colvin (10th Cir., September 24, 2015) (reversing district court affirmation of the ALJ’s denial of social security benefits to Trujillo) *Vigil v. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 10:58 pm
Colvin (10th Cir., September 24, 2015) (reversing district court affirmation of the ALJ’s denial of social security benefits to Trujillo)Flowell Electric Association, Inc., v. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 9:19 pm
Colvin (10th Cir., September 14, 2015) (affirming denial of Smith’s application for disability benefits and supplemental security income)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 11:32 pm
Colvin (10th Cir., August 18) (affirming denial of disability benefits)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 7:08 pm
Colvin (10th Cir., August 3, 2015) (affirming denial of disability insurance benefits)Workers CompensationMartinez v. [read post]
4 Mar 2012, 12:47 pm
Attorneys who have been around longer and know more than me, like Scott Greenfield, or Brian Tannebaum, or Mark Bennett, will point out that this is nothing new. [read post]
