|
SUSAN HERTZ, Individually and as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF ROGER HERTZ, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
No. 06-15443—John Corbett O’Meara, District Judge.
Argued: January 22, 2009
Decided and Filed: March 31, 2009
Before: SURHEINRICH, GRIFFIN, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Susan Hertz appeals the district court’s dismissal, on limitations grounds, of her claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671 et seq. We affirm.
|
JERRY CRAWFORD, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC, Defendant-Appellee. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 06-14276—Patrick J. Duggan, District Judge.
Argued: January 20, 2009
Decided and Filed: March 31, 2009
Before: MARTIN and COOK, Circuit Judges; WATSON, District Judge.
BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs, a class of former TRW Automotive employees, allege that TRW violated the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act by closing the plant where they worked to interfere with the vesting of their retirement benefits. The district court disagreed, and granted the company’s motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
|
GEORGE LINDSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 07-00078—Michael R. Barrett, District Judge.
Argued: March 10, 2009
Decided and Filed: March 31, 2009
Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; GILMAN and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. George Lindsley sought disabilityinsurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (SSA), claiming that he is unable to work due to a fused right wrist, depression, and bursitis. After an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the Social Security Appeals Council denied his claim for benefits, he filed suit in federal district court, arguing that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence because the testimony of the vocational expert conflicted with information found in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (the DOT). The district court upheld the ALJ’s determination. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.