Whitzell v. Astrue

3 Citing cases

  1. Przepierski v. Astrue

    CASE No. 8:10-CV-1767-T-30TGW (M.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2011)

    Accordingly, consolidation was not only appropriate, but the most reasonable approach. The plaintiff cites to Whitzell v. Astrue, 589 F. Supp.2d 100 (D. Mass. 2008), in support of the contention that his disability applications were improperly consolidated (Doc. 19, p. 13). However, Whitzell is inapposite.

  2. Seeger v. U.S. Dep't of Def.

    306 F. Supp. 3d 265 (D.D.C. 2018)   Cited 5 times
    Explaining that a court has subject-matter jurisdiction over an APA claim if the claim alleges a violation of an underlying statute or if the claim alleges agency action that is "arbitrary and capricious"

    Such a legal wrong includes an agency's basing its "decisions on arbitrary or capricious abuses of discretion," so that "one who makes a prima facie showing alleging such action on the part of an agency ... has standing to sue" under the APA. Id. at 869 ; see alsoWhitzell v. Astrue , 589 F.Supp.2d 100, 109 (D. Mass. 2008) ("Although [the relevant statute] does not give this Court jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the complaint, [plaintiff] is correct to seek review from this Court because she has nowhere else to turn.... In the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the congressional intent was to the contrary, courts ought not restrict access to such review.

  3. Mitchell v. Colvin

    Civil Action No. 16-10679-DJC (D. Mass. Jul. 28, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    The Court must adhere to these findings of fact "even if the record arguably could justify a different conclusion." Whitzell v. Astrue, 792 F. Supp. 2d 143, 148 (quoting Rodriguez Pagan v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 819 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1987)). To the contrary, the ALJ's findings of fact "are not conclusive when derived by ignoring evidence, misapplying the law, or judging matters entrusted to experts."