Case law

SMITH v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2025

that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … Thus, the AL]’s decision clearly explains the assessment and weighing of Dr.

BONE v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 6, 2022

This is simple and should not be tortured for no clearly articulated reason, especially when there is no identified prejudice to Plaintiffs. … Nov. 2, 2015) (explaining that terms regarding, inter alia, payment of Medicare liens, Medicare reporting forms and verifications, and indemnification qualify as material, “essential”

FOGLEMAN v. SAUL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 21, 2020

May 23, 2018) (Biggs, J.}, that explanation must itself be stated clearly enough to be susceptible to judicial review. … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has established errors warranting remand.

GANEY v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 20, 2024

The Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI), established by Title XVI of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 ef seg., provides benefits to indigent disabled persons. … that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80.

PENDERGRASS v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 25, 2023

The Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI), established by Title XVI of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 ef seg., ptovides benefits to indigent disabled persons. … The AL] thus clearly analyzed and weighed the evidence from the consultative examination and the opinion evidence from Dr.

SENDERRA RX PARTNERS, LLC v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 5, 2021

Thus, Senderra did not meet a clearly communicated term required by BCBSNC before it could participate in the specialty pharmacy network. … But satisfying the dispensary requirement through a corporate affiliate was merely one way in which pharmacies with qualifying affiliations could satisfy the requirement— it was not an exception. Doc. 137-7 at 5–6.

WALL v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 21, 2023

that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … May 23, 2018) (Biggs, J.), that explanation must itself be stated clearly enough to be susceptible to judicial review.

PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC v. JOHNSON

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 8, 2021

However, the Supreme Court has made clear that a counterclaim may not be considered to establish federal question jurisdiction. Vaden v. … This case qualifies as a civil action that is “otherwise removable solely on the basis of” diversity jurisdiction, and in this instance, Defendant Wijayaningsih is undisputedly a resident

Gilbert v. Bagley

492 F. Supp. 714 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 2, 1980

In the instant case the buyer, seller and sales price are established by the Shaffner agreement. … Joinder of all of the shareholder plaintiffs’ claims in one action will clearly serve judicial economy.

WEBB v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 9, 2021

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. … Bolz, “moderately severely impaired,” does not qualify as a “specific limitation,” (id.

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP v. COOPER

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 31, 2019

S.B. 824’s central requirement is that every voter present a qualifying photo ID before casting a ballot. 2018 N.C. Sess. Laws 144 § 1.2.(a). … These allegations suffice to establish organizational standing. interest. Id. at 20.

DEAN v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 17, 2021

that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … Such sources appear to find the claimant able to communicate clearly or at least they do not note otherwise. They certainly seem to tely on his report of symptoms and complaints.

MCLAUGHLIN v. BARR

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 21, 2020

She does not clearly delineate in the Amended Complaint or explain in her brief which acts by which supervisors and co-workers constitute the basis for each claim. … That is not enough to establish a claim for race discrimination or gender discrimination.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JUICE MAN LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 7, 2019

The party seeking removal has the burden to show the case qualifies for it. Lontz v. Tharp, 413 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2005). … Lontz, 413 F.3d at 439–40.4 As “[f]ederalism concerns strongly counsel against imputing to Congress an intent to displace a whole panoply of state law absent some clearly expressed direction,” “[t]he presumption . . .

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v, EONSMOKE LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 7, 2019

The party seeking removal has the burden to show the case qualifies for it. Lontz v. Tharp, 413 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2005). … Lontz, 413 F.3d at 439–40.4 As “[f]ederalism concerns strongly counsel against imputing to Congress an intent to displace a whole panoply of state law absent some clearly expressed direction,” “[t]he presumption . . .

LEA v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 26, 2022

“RFC is to be “perform past relevant work’; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … These requirements clearly belie Defendant’s contention that the DOT does not address the ability to follow short, simple instructions.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VAPECO DISTRIBUTION LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 7, 2019

The party seeking removal has the burden to show the case qualifies for it. Lontz v. Tharp, 413 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2005). … Lontz, 413 F.3d at 439–40.4 As “[f]ederalism concerns strongly counsel against imputing to Congress an intent to displace a whole panoply of state law absent some clearly expressed direction,” “[t]he presumption . .

CHALK v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 28, 2021

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 9- 23.) … Hines, 453 F.3d at 562-63. 5 A claimant thus can establish disability via two paths through the SEP.

ALLEN v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 2, 2023

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 14-26.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established an error warranting relief.

WILLIAMS v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2024

The Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI), established by Title XVI of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., provides benefits to indigent disabled persons. … Id. at 179.4 Step four then requires the ALJ to assess whether, based on that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80.