Case law

Bryant v. Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 30, 2023

At step two, the claimant must establish an impairment or combination of impairments that is severe. See Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084. … Clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual’s symptoms.” SSR 16-3p at *10; see also White v.

Vaughn v. Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Mar 22, 2022

Under agency regulations, the ALJ’s decision must give “specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual … See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513a(b)(1) (state agency psychologist are “highly qualified experts in Social Security disability evaluation”).

Hollis v. Bolt

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 12, 2019

In response, Respondent contends Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, explaining that “the OCCA’s determination of this claim is neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal … The evidence also established that several hours later, Mr.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. DolGenCorp, LLC

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Feb 2, 2024

have discovered and for which he was qualified; and (2) that plaintiff failed to use reasonable care and diligence in seeking such a position.” … June 1, 2016) (“To qualify as an affirmative defense, the defense must raise facts which will limit or defeat plaintiff's ability to recover.”) (citing E.E.O.C v.

Sinclair v. Social Security Administration

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Sep 26, 2024

She had no work that qualified as “past relevant work,” but she worked part- time cleaning banks with her mother from 2016 to 2018. (Tr. 68-69, 617, 630, 666). … Such analysis by the ALJ is clearly insufficient under 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) and 20 CFR § 416.927(c)(1)-(6) and provides no basis for meaningful review by this Court. See, e. g., Givens v. Astrue, 251 Fed.

IN THE MATTER OF V.J.R.

2024 OK 66 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Sep 24, 2024

Moreover, the DHS social worker and the highly qualified forensic interviewer both testified that they found Child's disclosures to be credible. … When two statutes are in conflict, it is a well-established principle that the more specific enactment will control. <i>Brown v. Creek Cty. ex rel. Creek Cty. Bd. of Cty.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 4, 2019

• Communication: Receptive (hearing, reading, attention span, processing information); • Interpersonal Skills: Establish/maintain relationships/ … Second, the ALJ clearly discounted Ms. Kroeker’s opinion based on the timing of her letter in relation to when Plaintiff began outpatient psychiatric treatments. (TR. 22).

Moreno v. Social Security Administration

District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Mar 20, 2025

“An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990). … Thus, the ALJ was clearly aware that Claimant was not working the same number of hours after her alleged onset date as she was working before her accident.

Carter v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 28, 2022

To satisfy this burden, a claimant must establish that her impairment “meet[s] all of the specified medical criteria. … An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990) (emphasis omitted).

Blackburn v. Webb

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 29, 2024

quotation marks omitted), a “prevailing defendant[] [is] only to be awarded attorney’s fees when the plaintiff’s claim is ‘frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or [when] the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly … In some cases, there are activities that would qualify for a fee award in the same entry as activities that would not. Similar to the above, these entries lack precision sufficient to award fees.

In Re Git-N-Go, Inc.

322 B.R. 164 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 23, 2004

argues that because Brink’s did not provide any services to the estate after GNG terminated the contract, Brink’s claim is not an “actual, necessary cost[ ] and expense[ ] of preserving the estate” and therefore does not qualify … Clearly GNG believed that it was necessary and in the best interests of the estate to continue to protect its revenue and employees by utilizing such security services during its reorganization because GNG’s chief restructuring

C. C. Julian Oil & Royalties Co. v. Capshaw

145 Okla. 237 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Oct 14, 1930

Doneghey, 71 Okla. 204 , 177 P. 86 , in referring to the rights of a surface owner or a leaseholder, this court said: "But with respect to such oil and gas, they had certain rights designated by the same courts as a qualified … From this it necessarily results that it was competent for the Legislature to lay down a general rule, and then establish an administrative tribunal with authority to fix the precise width or thickness of pillar that will

Malloy v. Mulkey Tire, Inc. (In Re Universal Factoring Co.)

279 B.R. 297 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 12, 2002

The Court entered a scheduling order (the “Scheduling Order”) on November 14, 2000, establishing deadlines for the completion of discovery, the fifing of dispositive motions, and the submission of a joint pretrial order. … “The [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] indicate clearly a general policy to disregard narrow technicalities and to bring about the final determination of justiciable controversies without undue delay.

Hanson v. Social Security Administration

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jul 11, 2022

Standard of Review The Social Security Act (the Act) provides disability insurance benefits to qualifying individuals who have a physical or mental disability … established in the record.”

Nelson v. Crow

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 15, 2020

Limitations period established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. … In Martinez, the state court determined that it was not “clearly established law” but a question that B. Availability and effect of tolling on the limitation period. 1.

Hancock v. Behenna

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Oct 27, 2023

The OCCA found “no clearly erroneous deviation from or misapplication of the statutory standard.” OCCA Summ. Op. at 5; cf. State ex rel. Smith v. Neuwirth, 337 P.3d 763, 764-66 (Okla. Crim. … But even assuming these avenues for relief qualify as an underlying claim that could be “unduly hinder[ed]” by Defendants’ conduct, neither of these proffered causes of action will support an access to courts claim because

OKLA. GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. v. STATE ex rel. OKLA. CORPORATION COMMISSION

2023 OK 33 · Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Apr 4, 2023

The Majority's illogical mathematical proof leaves much to be desired, especially when this Court has not clearly spoken to what it means for a Commission order to be "sustained by law." … Deference to an agency's interpretation is even more clearly in order when the construction is that of an administrative regulation rather than a statute. Id . (footnotes omitted).

Mahalxmi Hospitality, LLC v. Steadfast Insurance Company

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 23, 2021

However, it appears to be undisputed that Mahalxmi qualified as an insured under the Policies. [Doc. 112-3, p. 4; Doc. 112-4, p. 4]. … It is well-established under Oklahoma law that “unless fraud or mistake is involved pre- contract negotiations and oral discussions are merged into, and superseded by, the terms of the executed written agreement.”

Courtney v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jul 14, 2021

The reviewing physicians, who clearly considered Dr. Crall’s examination and findings, concluded otherwise. … Sometimes an expert’s withholding of such data, when combined with other aspects of the record, will prevent her testimony from qualifying as substantial evidence.

Allen v. Crow

District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Oct 14, 2022

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) establishes a one-year statute of limitations for state prisoners seeking federal collateral review of a state-court judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. … Dkt. # 9, at 2; Dkt. # 9-2, at 8-14; see Clark, 468 F.3d at 714 (explaining that motions and applications filed after expiration of the limitation period do not qualify as tolling motions under § 2244(d)(2)).