Findlaw News

Case Summaries

Government Benefits

[05/07] Wrenn v. Astrue
A district court's determination that the combined attorney's fees for representation before the Social Security Administration (SSA) and on appeal to a district court cannot exceed 25% of past-due benefits is reversed and remanded where the Commissioner and the court have the authority to independently determine the appropriate attorney's fees, and the 25% limitation on fees for court representation is not itself limited by the amount of fees awarded by the Commissioner.

[05/06] Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.

[05/05] Reeves v. Astrue
An award of attorney's fees granted under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. section 2412(d)(1)(A) belongs to the "prevailing party", which is the party and not the party's attorney.

More...

Workers' Comp

[05/06] Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.

[04/30] Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner
In a case considering whether, for purposes of worker's compensation insurance, persons who made deliveries of newspapers for a newspaper publisher were independent contractors or employees, the court of appeals finds that the specific facts of this case and relevant case law supported a conclusion that the carriers were employees, and not independent contractors.

[04/29] Ramirez v. Murdick
In an action wherein plaintiff filed a Huffman claim seeking liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs for the late payment of worker's compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Superior Court did not err in its interpretation and application of Workers' Compensation Act, 19 Del. C. sections 2357 and 2362(c); and 2) although the Superior Court erred in converting employer's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without notice, the error was harmless.

More...