How cited: Faison v. Colvin · Go Syfert

Faison v. Colvin (2016)

green · 11 citation events across 2 courts. Showing the 8 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
green Brown v. Colvin (2016)
Rule Authority · D.D.C. · 2 citations in this opinion
A district court has discretion “to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner, with or without remanding the case for a rehearing.” Faison v. Colvin, Civil No. 14-1551, 187 F.Supp.3d 190, 193 , 2016 WL 2962189, at *2 (D.D.C.
citing Ademakinwa v. Astrue, 696 F.Supp.2d 107, 110 (D.D.C.2010)
green Jackson v. Berryhill (2022)
Rule Authority · D.D.C.
A district court has discretion “to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner, with or without remanding the case for a rehearing.” Faison v. Colvin, 187 F. Supp. 3d 190, 193 (D.D.C. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
internal quotation marks omitted
green Johnson v. Berryhill (2022)
Rule Authority · D.D.C.
The Court “must affirm the . . . decision where it is supported by substantial evidence and not tainted by an error of law.” Faison v. Colvin, 187 F. Supp. 3d 190, 193 (D.D.C. 2016) (internal quota- tion marks omitted).
internal quota- tion marks omitted
green Harvey v. Berryhill (2022)
Rule Authority · D.D.C.
A district court has discretion “to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner, with or without remanding the case for a rehearing.” Faison v. Colvin, 187 F. Supp. 3d 190, 193 (D.D.C. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
internal quotation marks omitted
Rule Authority · D.D.C.
A district court has discretion “to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner, with or without remanding the case for a rehearing.” Faison v. Colvin, 187 F. Supp. 3d 190, 193 (D.D.C. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
internal quotation marks omitted
green Dowell v. Colvin (2017)
Rule Authority · D.D.C.
A district court has discretion “to enter, upon the pleadings and transcript of the record, a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the decision of the Commissioner, with or without remanding the case for a rehearing.” Faison v. Colvin, 187 F.Supp.3d 190, 192-94 (D.D.C. 2016) (citing Ademakinwa v. Astrue, 696 F.Supp.2d 107, 110 (D.D.C. 2010)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
citing Ademakinwa v. Astrue, 696 F.Supp.2d 107, 110 (D.D.C. 2010)
green Kenner v. Berryhill (2018)
Cited (see also) · D.C. Cir. · signal: see also
Plaintiff is entitled to an award of benefits The undersigned finds that an immediate award of benefits is warranted: The ALJ improperly applied the treating physician rule, and Defendant has conceded that the ALJ's determination fails to address medical opinion evidence from Plaintiff's treating physicians that is contradictory and is void of a discussion of the applicable authorities pursuant 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 , demonstrating that additional proceedings would simply del…
finding remand for an award of benefits appropriate where ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and "additional hearings would serve no purpose other than to delay the inevitable receipt of benefits"
green Kenner v. Colvin (2018)
Cited (see also) · D.D.C. · signal: see also
Plaintiff is entitled to an award of benefits The undersigned finds that an immediate award of benefits is warranted: The ALJ improperly applied the treating physician rule, and Defendant has conceded that the ALJ’s determination fails to address medical opinion evidence from Plaintiff’s treating physicians that is contradictory and is void of a discussion of the applicable authorities pursuant 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 , demonstrating that additional proceedings would simply del…
finding remand for an award of benefits appropriate where ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and “additional hearings would 13 Kenner v. Berryhill serve no purpose other than to delay the inevitable receipt of benefits”