Thirteenth Edition, annotates over 800 cases, and includes: unpublished Eleventh Circuit cases and published district court cases decided through January 31, 2011
Annotates over 300 new reported and unreported decisions issued by the district courts in the states of Florida, Georgia and Alabama, including over 200 cases with decisions on the merits, as well as over 50 attorney fee cases.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 2008 UPDATE
Ingram v. Commissioner of Social Security, 496 F.3d 1253, 1257 (11th Cir. 2007) (concluding that "a federal district court must consider evidence not submitted to the administrative law judge but considered by the Appeals
Council when the court reviews the Commissioner's final decision denying Social Security benefits")(Editors note: In the federal court appeal, the claimant must specifically challenge the the Appeals Council's denial of review
under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405 (g), not sentence six).
Reeves v. astrue, __F.3d__ 2008 WL 1930587 (11th Cir. May 5, 2008) (holding that attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA") are awarded to the prevailing party and not to the prevailing party's attorney) (Editor's note: By obtaining EAJA assignments from the plaintiffs, SSA will pay the fees directly to the attorney.
Blitch v. Astrue, Case No. 07-11298, 261 Fed. App. 241 (11th Cir. Jan. 8, 2008) (unreported) (holding that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing a fee petition filed under 42 U.S.C. 406(b) as untimely, finding that the attorney's actions were reasonable).
Grant v. Astrue, Case No. 07-12206, 255 Fex. Appx. 374 (11th Cir. Nov. 13, 2007) (unreported) (holding that the ALJ applied an incorrect legal standard in finding that the claimant did not meet Listing 12.05C for mental retardation, noting that the claimant was entitled to the rebuttable presumption in Hodges v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1265, 1268-69 (11th Cir 2001) that absent evidence of a sudden trauma causing mental retardation, there is a presumption that a claimant manifested a mental impairment before age 22)
Council when the court reviews the Commissioner's final decision denying Social Security benefits")(Editors note: In the federal court appeal, the claimant must specifically challenge the the Appeals Council's denial of review
under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405 (g), not sentence six).
Reeves v. astrue, __F.3d__ 2008 WL 1930587 (11th Cir. May 5, 2008) (holding that attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA") are awarded to the prevailing party and not to the prevailing party's attorney) (Editor's note: By obtaining EAJA assignments from the plaintiffs, SSA will pay the fees directly to the attorney.
Blitch v. Astrue, Case No. 07-11298, 261 Fed. App. 241 (11th Cir. Jan. 8, 2008) (unreported) (holding that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing a fee petition filed under 42 U.S.C. 406(b) as untimely, finding that the attorney's actions were reasonable).
Grant v. Astrue, Case No. 07-12206, 255 Fex. Appx. 374 (11th Cir. Nov. 13, 2007) (unreported) (holding that the ALJ applied an incorrect legal standard in finding that the claimant did not meet Listing 12.05C for mental retardation, noting that the claimant was entitled to the rebuttable presumption in Hodges v. Barnhart, 276 F.3d 1265, 1268-69 (11th Cir 2001) that absent evidence of a sudden trauma causing mental retardation, there is a presumption that a claimant manifested a mental impairment before age 22)
